Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout 103-CUP-23 Sunroc1 APPLICANTS: Sunroc Corporation PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Gravel Pit Expansion Small Gravel Mining COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Etna ZONING: Rural PLANNER: Robert C. Davis PIN: 3519-021-00-340 REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit Application for a Small Gravel Mining operation calling for the expansion of an existing 10-acre gravel pit operation to 27.5 acres on roughly 39.39 acres in the Rural zone. Sunroc also requests the set up a hot mix asphalt plant and concrete batch plant on the site. The WDEQ application requires verification of local zoning compliance. LOCATION: 3 miles northwest of Star Valley Ranch, Wyoming E1⁄2NW1⁄4 of Section 2, T35N R119W Lot 3. Access is from Rock Farm Road, a 60-foot easement and private road. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Application 3. WDOT Access Permit 4. Operation Plan 5. Air Quality Permit 6. Mining/Reclamation Plan 7. Deed 8. Comments from residents 9. Previous Staff Reports 10. Attachment I - Gravel pits permitting cement and asphalt plants PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners Deny File # 103 CUP 23 a Conditional Use Permit for the Sunroc Gravel Pit Expansion including the cement batch plant and hot asphalt mix operations with: • FINDINGS OF DENIAL A-D. PROPOSAL The existing gravel pit operated under the previous owner as excavating, stockpiling and hauling gravel or ‘pit run’ gravel as Limited Gravel Mining not exceeding 15 acres quarry exemption from the WDEQ. The previous owner, Depatco, proposed to lease the gravel pit to different operations who would permit their own screening and crushing equipment. The applicant, Sunroc Corporation, proposes to conduct their own crushing operation in addition to operating LINCOLN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING TIME AND DATE: 10:00 A.M., JUNE 7, 2023 HEARING LOCATIONS: LINCOLN COUNTY COURTHOUSE KEMMERER, WYOMING & VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE AT AFTON BRANCH OFFICE FILE # 103 CUP 23 2 a hot mix asphalt and cement batch plant on the site and expand into a Small Gravel Mining operation. The applicant proposes to operate from 7am to 6pm Monday through Friday. There is a well on site that will be used for water. Sanitary services will be provided with portable toilets. The applicant intends to install berms around the perimeter of the operation, adhere to State and Federal requirements, i.e., Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, control fugitive dust, install appropriate erosion and sediment controls, implement a spill prevention and countermeasures plan and adhere to air quality regulation requirements. As with the Limited Mining operation, only 10 acres of land can be disturbed in any one year. At the Planning and Zoning Committee’s (PZC) Public Hearing held on April 19, 2023, the neighbors refuted the assumption that there should not be a substantive increase in the intensity of the use if limited to crushing and excavation operations. The operation under the management of Depatco over the last few years was sparse and saw limited crushing occurring during those times. Sunroc, on the other hand, is expected to fully operate as the seasons permit. As such, there is anticipated to be a substantive increase in impact from when Depatco operated. With regard to traffic, the applicant projects a maximum of 480 trucks/month for the crushing operation, 440 trucks/month for the concrete batch plan operation and 226 trucks/month for the asphalt plant operation for a maximum total of 1,156 trucks/month. According to the Depatco Air Quality Permit P0023021, the amount of material crushed or hauled from the pit shall not exceed 40,000 tons per year or 3,333 average tons per month. In general, a dump truck can carry 13 to 25 tons of gravel which equates to 256 to 133 trucks/month on average (if operated 12 months of the year). With the advent of the cement batch and asphalt plant, truck traffic is projected to increase by 140%. If the cement batch and asphalt plants were not allowed, the amount of truck traffic would not exceed the limits imposed by the existing Air Quality Permit. The residents at the PZC Public Hearing pointed out that there would likely be a 3 maximum use of trucks per month given the operation would not occur during a 12-month period but more like a 3-to-6- month period. The proposal calls for expansion of the gravel pit’s excavation area. The excavation area’s eastern boundary would increase from roughly 418 feet from the western property line to roughly 1,030 feet from the western property line. This would represent an additional 600 feet expansion from the western property line. With the proposed expansion, the nearest occupied dwelling to the east would be roughly 330-340 feet away from the proposed disturbance boundary. Currently, the gravel pit operation is over 1,000 feet from the closest residential building. The current WDEQ permitted disturbed boundary places the operation roughly 775 feet from the nearest occupied dwelling. The gravel pit, originally permitted through WDEQ in 1985, was expanded from three (3) acres to 10 acres in 2008 (109 PZ 08). In the 2008 approval, the applicant was to maintain a 1000-foot separation from any existing home unless home owners gave written permission. In the 2008 approval for the expansion of the gravel pit from three (3) acres to 10 acres, Condition #4 states, ‘Applicant will maintain 1000 feet of separation from any existing home, unless homeowner(s) give written permission (copy to be submitted to the County). The distance will be measured from the project boundary of the gravel pit to the existing home(s’)’. It was not clear to the current Staff whether the conditioned 1,000-foot separation pertained to the entire gravel pit operation or to the crushing operation as dictated in the LUR. Residents at the April 19, 2023 PZC Public Hearing stated the original owners of the gravel pit were the Robinson family who also built the Rocky Mountain Ranches subdivision immediately east of the gravel pit. The residents contend that the Robinson’s had agreed to a 1,000-foot buffer from the entire gravel pit operations to the nearest residential dwelling. It was stated at the Public Hearing that the 1,000- foot requirement was mandated by the WDEQ at the time, but was later changed to a 300-foot requirement. State Statute only requires a 300-foot separation and Land Use Regulation (LUR) 6.8 F currently requires the same for both Limited and Small Gravel Mining. Although the applicant was approved by the Board of 4 County Commissioners for Limited Mining up to 10 acres, the WDEQ will allow the pit to expand to 15 acres with an increase in the bond. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND The request made in 2015 to expand the gravel pit (105 PZ 15) from 10 acres to 15 acres was tabled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. At the November 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting, in addition to the Planning Staff’s 11 Conditions of Approval, the PZC found that the proposed use would substantially impair the neighboring property and that the conditional use was not compatible with adjacent land uses and the area of its location. It appears these concerns partly stemmed from the ‘haul road damage and more specifically, culvert approaches damage’. Subsequently, the PZC tabled the application until January 2016 ‘to organize a solution for improving the vertical alignments for the culvert and for reinforcement of the canal crossing’. The applicant eventually withdrew the application. Normally gravel pits are not allowed adjoining an existing residential subdivision as per the current regulations, but because the pit was permitted prior to the platting of the Rocky Mtn. Ranches Subdivision which occurred in October 2003, it was allowed as a ‘conforming use in the Rural zone’. Staff considers the subject gravel pit to be a legal non-conforming use. Under the LUR, the non-conforming use is allowed to exist and expand, particularly when there will be no greater impacts of traffic, noise, hazardous air pollution, vibration, dust and other affects industrial uses tend to have on sensitive residential areas. Section 1.6 of the Land Use Regulations (LUR) Non-Conforming Uses allows for: 1. Changes in use of non-conforming building, structure or land, provided that the new use has no greater impact in regards to traffic, noise generation, parking requirements and similar factors, than the existing use. A conditional use permit must be obtained prior to any expansion. 2. Non-conforming uses may expand, but only on a lot or parcel occupied by the use on the effective date of these regulations. A conditional use permit must be obtained prior to any expansion. 5 At the April 19 PZC Public Hearing, Staff noted a Wyoming Supreme Court decision pertaining to the expansion of a gravel pit. The case specifically addresses gravel pits and the categorization of “diminishing assets". The Court recognized the logical expansion of a non-conforming use for a diminishing asset. To address non-conforming diminishing asset expansion, the Court adopted a three-prong test that has been implemented by other jurisdictions facing the same situation. The applicant/nonconforming user has the burden to prove all three. The three-prong test states: 1. The use was in existences at the time the regulation passed; 2. The area intended for expansion was clearly intended to be expanded as measured by objective manifestations; 3. Continued operations do not and or/will not have a substantially different and adverse impact on the neighborhood. The County Attorney then stated he felt that proving Prong #3 was questionable in that it would appear to have additional impacts given that the gravel pit excavation operation had stood relatively dormant over the last few years. As mentioned earlier in this report, the public presented a convincing argument that the gravel pit excavation expansion would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. There will be additional impacts to the surrounding area particularly if the cement batch and asphalt plants are established. This is because the site is currently bordered by agricultural uses with the exception of a residential use to the south and the Rocky Mountain Ranches and Lazy A Ranch Subdivisions to the northeast and southeast (see map on previous page). The gravel pit will likely be bordered by further residential development to the south with the proposed Outhouse and Etna North Subdivisions. Approved master plans for Founders Park and Airstream subdivisions exist roughly 800 feet north of the gravel pit site leaving only two parcels directly north and east remaining as agricultural use. Further, those two remaining directly adjacent agricultural use parcels to the gravel pit are in a development path likely for mixed use high density residential zoning. As such, it is highly likely the gravel pit site will be completely surrounded by sensitive residential uses in the short-term. Given the potential development of more residential units in the area, the advent of a hot mix asphalt plant and cement batch plant would be extremely incompatible. Heavy industrial uses are not allowed in Rural zoning. If only the excavation expansion was approved, Staff has articulated 23 Conditions including a buffer area to the north of 600 ft. by 100 ft. along with a buffer of 600 ft. by 40 feet to the south that should be considered. The aforementioned buffer would allow for at least 100 feet of space between the pit area and adjacent lots to the north and south which are likely to develop as residential uses. Hot Asphalt Mix and Cement Batch Plant Operations Hot mix asphalt is used primarily as paving material and consists of a mixture of aggregate and liquid asphalt cement, which are heated and mixed in measured quantities. Hot mix asphalt (HMA) facilities can be broadly classified as either drum mix plants or batch mix plants, according to the process by which the raw materials are mixed. Air emissions are created at several stages during asphalt production. Most of the emissions come from an asphalt plants main stack. Fumes from asphalt storage and loading areas account for the remaining air emissions, collectively referred to as fugitive emissions. Several studies find many communities suffer from pollution caused by concrete batch plants and reports 6 that particulate emissions (PM) coat homes and cars and cause respiratory problems. The largest concerns associated with concrete batch plants are effects on traffic, air quality and water runoff. Both the Board of County Commissioners and the WDEQ did not allow an asphalt hot mix plant to be operated on the subject site under the current Conditional Use Permit. A typical concrete batch plant mixes water, cement, sand or gravel in batches mixed in a drum to create concrete. The transferring of aggregate into the silos, to the trucks, mixers, and etc., causes particulate matter emissions. Staff contacted the WDEQ to gather information on cement batch plants and asphalt plant operations currently permitted in Lincoln County. WDEQ indicated that there were nine (9) gravel pits in the county that have also been permitted for either a hot mix asphalt plant or a concrete batch plant (see Attachment I). All nine (9) pits are provided by WDEQ permitted for a hot mix asphalt plant but only one (1) gravel pit, Schulthess Pit, a.k.a., Wind Rivers Materials, LLC has been permitted for both. The other pit permitted for a cement batch plant is the Afton Pit, a.k.a. Avail Valley Construction. The nine (9) gravel pits permitted with either a cement batch or hot mix asphalt plants are: 1. Afton Pit, Avail Valley Construction-WY, LLC 2. Davison Pit, Flare Construction, Incorporated 3. Cedar Creek Pit , Avail Valley Construction-WY, LLC 4. 7 C's Pit, Wyoming Department of Transportation 5. Schulthess Pit, Wind River Materials, LLC 6. Weber Quarry, Wyoming Department of Transportation 7. Bon Rico Plant Site, Wyoming Department of Transportation 8. Pomeroy Pit, Wyoming Department of Transportation 9. Alpine Pit, Wyoming Department of Transportation Staff found permit information for a total of 29 gravel pits in the county including the nine (9) listed above. The gravel pits are listed in a spreadsheet found in Attachment I. State Requirements The applicant would be required to maintain permits from the WDEQ Land, Water and Air Quality Divisions. The applicant is also required to submit annual reports to the WDEQ. Staff has requested from WDEQ copies of the annual permits and documents relative to the transfer of ownership of the gravel pit. This would verify the amount of activity at the permit over the years. The crusher operation would require separate permits. A Small Mine Permit would allow a batch plant after meeting requirements for a Storm Water Permit. These requirements would have to be met and would be stored or articulated within the WDEQ Land Quality Permit. Public Comment Forty emails and letters were submitted opposing the proposed expansion citing the proposal as an eyesore, degradation of the environmental experience, concerns of toxic odors, devaluation of residential land and inversions (an inversion traps air pollution close to the ground and occurs when cold air at the surface gets trapped under a layer of warmer air). 7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2023 After lengthy public comment and deliberation, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to send a recommendation of DENIAL for the entire request to the Board of County Commissioners with Findings of Denial A-D. FINDINGS OF DENIAL: A. The proposal, with conditions, will substantially impair the appropriate use of neighboring property and will not provide a greater public need for convenience and welfare. B. The proposed gravel pit is not designed to be compatible with adjacent land uses and the area of its location. C. The existing non-conforming use, if changed or expanded, will have greater impact with regards to traffic, noise generation, environmental impacts and similar factors than the existing use. D. The proposal is not consistent with goals and objectives of the Lincoln County Comprehensive Plan, including Section IV Land Use Objective 1. Create Land Use Regulations that promote the responsible and orderly development of Lincoln County. ATTACHMENT #1 Office of Planning and Development Lincoln County,Wyoming www.lincolncountywy.gov Kemmerer Office Afton Office 925 Sage Avenue Suite 201 61 E 5th Avenue Kemmerer,WY 83101 Mail:421 Jefferson St,Ste 701 307-877-9056 Afton,WY 83110 fax 307-877-6439 307-885-3106 Date:May 30,2023 To:Board of County Commissioners From:Emmett Mavy,Planner II and Lydia Pfaff RE:GRAVEL PIT PERMITS IN LINCOLN COUNTY 2023 Lincoln County,Wyoming permits Gravel Pits,Hot Mix Asphalt,and Concrete Batch Plants. Depending on what is approved by the County,a land owner will need a permit from the Land Division of the Wyoming DEQ for all gravel operations.If a hot mix asphalt or cement batch plant is approved,they also need a separate permit from the Air Quality Division of the Wyoming DEQ. We requested from the Air Quality Division of WDEQ a current list of all hot mix asphalt and cement batch plants currently approved to operate in Lincoln County: North Lincoln County has 3 “Hot Mix Asphalt''permits (With 1 belonging to WYDOT) North Lincoln County has 1 Concrete Batch Plants. North Lincoln County has 12 Gravel Pits without Hot Mix or Concrete Batch Plants. South Lincoln County has 6 “Hot Mix Asphalt ''permits (With 4 belonging to WYDOT) South Lincoln County has 1 Concrete Batch Plants. South Lincoln County has 8 Gravel Pits without Hot Mix or Concrete Batch Plants (With 1 belonging to WYDOT). Please see the attached spreadsheet for gravel pits on record within the Planning and Development Department along with information provided by WDEQ concerning cement batch and hot mix asphalt plant permitting. Thank you. Facility ID LC Permit #Facility Name Company ID Company Name Operating Facility Class Facility Type County Lat/Long Hox Mix Asphalt Plant Concrete Batch Plant F026921 513 ZD 15 Alpine Pit CMP000839 Wyoming Department of Transportation Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Alpine 43.16429 -111.03454 Yes No F021795 109 PZ 18 Cedar Creek Pit CMP100637 Avail Valley Construction-WY, LLC Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Freedom 42.97539 -111.02149 Yes No F016483 Afton Pit CMP100637 Avail Valley Construction-WY, LLC Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Afton 42.74364 -110.94249 Yes Yes 502 ZD 08 ; 502 ZD 11 NAEF Douglasl Naef Lincoln Alpine 43.15978 -111.03989 No No 108 PZ 09 Evans Evans Construction Lincoln Etna 43.06357 -111.00475 No No 109 PZ 08 Sunroc Sunroc Corporation Lincoln Etna 43.05312 -111.00586 No No 107 PZ 10 ; 505 ZD 10 ; 103 PZ 18 Rocky Top GECR, LLC Lincoln Etna 43.02726 -111.0199 No No 106 PZ 99 ; 103 PZ 02 Jenkins/HK Kendall Jenkins Lincoln Freedom 42.97939 -111.02136 No No 105 PZ 04 Call Ready Mix & Lumber Dee Call Lincoln Freedom 42.97209 -111.01357 No No 110 PZ 08 Kilroy Hebdon Construction Lincoln Freedom 42.96992 -111.0157 No No Bedford/Strawberry Avail Valley Construction-WY, LLC Lincoln Bedford 42.88966 -110.95306 No No 115 PZ 06 Peavler's Pit Star Valley Rock Products Lincoln Afton 42.75573 -110.94046 No No Kennington Pit Kennington Trustees Lincoln Afton 42.75255 -110.93706 No No Call Ready Mix & Lumber Dee Call Lincoln Afton 42.74688 -110.93514 No No Lincoln County Pit Lincoln County Fairgrounds Lincoln Afton 42.73827 -110.95865 No No F021662 104 PZ 08 7 C's Pit CMP000839 Wyoming Department of Transportation Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Cokeville 42.13746 -110.88126 Yes No F024566 Weber Quarry CMP000839 Wyoming Department of Transportation Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Kemmerer 41.63001 -110.56847 Yes No F024568 Bon Rico Plant Site CMP000839 Wyoming Department of Transportation Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Kemmerer 41.63001 -110.56847 Yes No F024948 504 ZD 08 Pomeroy Pit CMP000839 Wyoming Department of Transportation Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Kemmerer 41.87221 -110.54839 Yes No 503 ZD 15 ; 514 ZD 18 Sims Wyoming Department of Transportation Lincoln LaBarge 42.23618 -110.21596 No No F021364 107 PZ 08 Davison Pit (CT-7451)CMP001422 Flare Construction, Incorporated Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Kemmerer 41.74416 -110.47270 Yes No F023882 113 PZ 08 ; 101 PZ 11 Schulthess Pit CMP001756 Wind River Materials, LLC Operating Minor Small Mine (Non-Coal)Lincoln Kemmerer 41.75644 -110.45176 Yes Yes 116 PZ 06 WYWJ Esterholt Lincoln Cokeville 42.21659 -111.04036 No No 602 PZ 08 Thornock Kevin Dimond Lincoln Cokeville 42.09952 -110.88548 No No 105 PZ 13 Circle B Circle B Land Company Lincoln Cokeville 42.089 -110.87568 No No 106 PZ 09 Fox Gravel Pit Fox Materials, LLC Lincoln Kemmerer 41.89513 -110.62299 No No 101 PZ 09 Lewis Gravel Pit Lincoln County Lincoln Kemmerer 41.82312 -110.70952 No No 110 PZ 05 ; 118 PZ 07 ; 511 ZD 07 Collins Collins Backhoe & Water Service Lincoln Opal 41.77397 -110.18371 No No 105 PZ 06 Howard Riverside Land, LLC Lincoln LaBarge 42.14821 -110.19646 No No Star Valley Ranch 28 33 29 3432 30 27 31 27 36 25 33 35 26 34 28 30 16 09 15 20 07 05 0306 22 04 19 28 18 29 10 27 08 17 21 0204 15 21 12 14 25 10 13 09 11 16 26 03 28 24222723 01 36N 119W 36N 118W 35N 118W35N 119W Hawk'sRes t Ro a d Rock Farm CourtStockman RoadRock Farm Road £¤89BEDFORD LLC ALLRED, LAEL L & CHRISTINA K TRUSTEES OUTHOUSE PROPERTIES,LLC JUDGE, STEPHEN W ROBERTS, JAMES S & LESLIE A JUDGE, THOMAS M.& LEE ELLEN COUGAR RANCH LTD. SUNROCCORPORATION JOHNSTON, JULIA L TROMPETER,BARBARA A WHEATLEY, LILA B WHEELER PROPERTIES,LLC ANDERSON, SCOTT G &JENNIFER A CHASON, KAREN J CHASON, HUBERT L &LISA F AUSTINDEVELOPMENT, INC. ROBINSON, THOMAS J ROBERTS, JAMES C & SHARRI L O & O HOLDINGS LLC ALLRED, LAEL L & CHRISTINAK TRUSTEES SALT RIVER DEVELOPMENT,LLC OLIVER, BARBARAM TRUSTEE, ETAL ROSA INVESTMENTS, LLC BLACKBIRDRENTALS, LLC OLVERA, MARIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONOF WYOMING SOLIDCONCRETE LLC VOGEL, MICHAELJ & LYNN A OTTOBRE, ANTHONY A &JANELL M SAVARESE, PAIGE SONDGEROTH, CLAY TOPP, CECIL O & DENISE S Maxar, Microsoft Conditional Use Application Projects US Highways WY Highways Township & Range Sections Municipalities Public Noticing 103 CUP 23 Gravel Pit Expansion Sunroc Corporation Prepared using available data by Destry Dearden, on 27 Jan. 2023. Map is for informational purposes only and in no way represents an official survey of land. July 5, 2022 (updated 2/24/2023) Board of Lincoln County Commissioners 925 Sage Avenue, Suite 302 Kemmerer, WY 83101 RE: Conditional Use Permit #109 PZ 08 Expansion Application, Sunroc Corporation DBA Depatco Dear Lincoln County Planning and Zoning: Sunroc Corporation herby files application to expand the currently approved Conditional Use Permit #109 PZ 08. The CUP is an approved conforming use in a Rural zone approved to disturb, extract and process aggregates on 10 acres of a 39.39-acre parcel (parcel # 35190210034000) owned by Sunroc Corporation. Sunroc Corporation is applying to expand the CUP to 27.5 acres of the parcel to process aggregates, set up an asphalt plant and concrete batch plant. No permanent structures will be constructed. Best Regards, Bill King Attachments: Vicinity/Location Map CUP Permit (#109 PZ 08) Air Quality Permit (No. P0023021), Fugitive Dust Control Plan Mining/Reclamation Permit (No. 556 ET) Mining/Reclamation Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Lincoln County Subdivision Road Standards Deed Attachment Vicinity/Location Map © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 TomTom Rock Farm Road 300 FOOT DISTURBANCE SETBACK PROPOSED HOTMIX ASPHALT PLANT PROPOSED CONCRETEBATCH PLANT PROPOSED DISTURBANCE BOUNDARY 1,000 FOOT CONCRETE/ASPHALT SETBACK © 2023 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 TomTom NO.DATE:DESCRIPTION:BY:B.KingBK/OLSunroc CorporationEtna PitE12 NW14 of Section 2, T. 35N., R. 119W., 6th P.M. Lincoln County, Wyoming7/7/2022Dwg. No.Date:Approved:Drawn:Checked:TITLE:Sunroc Corporation730 N 1500 WOrem, Utah 84057801-802-6900Etna PitConditional Use Permit MapSUNROC PROPERTY BOUNDARY PERMITTED DISTURBED BOUNDARY (556 ET, 15 ACRES) ACTIVE DISTURBED AREA BOUNDARY (10 ACRES) Feet 0 250 500 PARCEL BOUNDARIES 300' MINING DISTURBANCE OFFSET BOUNDARY LEGEND OPERATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT # 109 PZ 08 (10 ACRE GRAVEL PIT) PROPERTY IS ZONED RURAL PARCEL # 35190210034000 (APPROX. 39.39 ACRES) SITE OPERATIONS ARE FROM 7:00 AM TO 6:00 PM MONDAY-FRIDAY PROPOSED OPERATIONS (AGGREGATE CRUSHING/CONCRETE BATCH PLANT/ASPHALT PLANT) PROPOSED OPERATIONS TO EXTRACT AGGREGATES FORM 10 ACRES TO 27.5 ACRES. CONTROL FUGITIVE DUST TO AVOID AIR QUALITY IMPACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. ADHERE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY SITE PERMITS. INSTALL APPROPRIATE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS WHERE THERE IS THE POTENTIAL OF SEDIMENT TO BE TRANSPORTED TO A WATERCOURSE. KEEP SEDIMENT ON-SITE USING SEDIMENT BASINS, TRAPS OR SEDIMENT BARRIERS. A STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN WILL BE IMPLEMENTED ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. A SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN WILL BE IMPLEMENTED REQUIRING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THERE IS A WELL ON SITE THAT WILL BE USED FOR WATER. TEN PARKING STALLS WILL BE PROVIDED. SANITARY SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED WITH PORTABLE TOILETS. BOTTLED WATER WILL BE PROVIDED FOR DRINKING WATER. BERMS WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE OPERATION TRAFFIC COUNT (AVERAGE PER MONTH) -AGGREGATE CRUSHER, 480 TRUCKS/MONTH -CONCRETE BATCH PLANT, 440 TRUCKS/MONTH -ASPHALT PLANT, 225 TRUCKS/MONTH Vicinity Map(NTS) ETNA PIT 021/31/2023Update CUP Map and DescriptionBKPROPOSED DISTURBANCE BOUNDARY (27.5 ACRES) 1,000' BATCHING DISTURBANCE OFFSET BOUNDARY List of names and current addresses of all property owners within 300 feet of the property OWNERSHIP: ANDERSON, SCOTT G & JENNIFER A DEED BOOK PAGE: 739-542 LEGAL: LOT 3 PARCEL NO: 35190210033800 LOCATION: ROCKY MTN RANCHES LOT: 3 MAILING ADDRESS: BOX 5162, ETNA, WY 83118 OWNERSHIP: WHEELER PROPERTIES, LLC DEED BOOK PAGE: 935-778 LEGAL: LOT 1 PARCEL NO: 35190210031200 LOCATION: ROCKY MTN RANCHES LOT: 1 MAILING ADDRESS: P O BOX 124, , MOOSE, WY 83012 OWNERSHIP: TROMPETER, BARBARA A DEED BOOK PAGE: 1025-729 LEGAL: LOT 5 PARCEL NO: 35190210032000 LOCATION: ROCKY MTN RANCHES LOT: 5 MAILING ADDRESS: 2025 N FISH CREEK ROAD, , WILSON, WY 83014 OWNERSHIP: OUTHOUSE PROPERTIES, LLC DEED BOOK PAGE: 745-675 LEGAL: 18.66 AC. SE4NW4 PARCEL NO: 35190220030300 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 12027, JACKSON, WY 83002 OWNERSHIP: PAPA BEAR, LLC DEED BOOK PAGE: 648-30 LEGAL: 42.85 AC.(LOT 4,PT SW4NW4) PARCEL NO: 35190220004300 MAILING ADDRESS: 9108 GHOST MOUNTAIN AVE, , LAS VEGAS, NV 89129 OWNERSHIP: AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT, INC. DEED BOOK PAGE: 594-123 LEGAL: 92.37 AC. SE4NW4, SW4NW4, NE4SW4, NW4SW4 PT PARCEL NO: 35190220033200 MAILING ADDRESS: BOX 5211, ETNA, WY 83118 OWNERSHIP: OLIVER, BARBARA M TRUSTEE, ETAL DEED BOOK PAGE: 635-340, 899-635, 1059-384 LEGAL: 56.99 AC PT S2SW4 PARCEL NO: 36193530007500 MAILING ADDRESS: 1210 EAST CANYON CREEK DRIVE, BOUNTIFUL, UT 84010 OWNERSHIP: TOPP, CECIL O & DENISE S DEED BOOK PAGE: 977-15 LEGAL: LOT 6 PARCEL NO: 36193540019800 LOCATION: LAZY A RANCH 2ND FILING LOT: 6 MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 6645, JACKSON, WY 83002 Attachment Conditional Use Permit # 109 PZ 08 Attachment Air Quality Permit No. P0023021 Fugitive Dust Control Plan DUST CONTROL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN SUNROC CORPORATION DBA DEPATCO ETNA PIT Located At: Part of E ½ of NW ¼ of Section 2, T 35 N, R 119 W in Lincoln County, WY Prepared: February 2023 By: Clyde Companies, Property & Environmental Dept. DRAFT V.1 pg. 1 Sunroc Corporation DBA Depatco – Etna Pit Dust Management Plan DRAFT V.1 Rev. 2/23/23 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................... 2 DUST CONTROL FOR ROADS AND OPEN AREAS ........................................................................................... 2 DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR MATERIAL STORAGE PILES AND MATERIAL HANDLING ........................... 2 DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR CRUSHING ................................................................................................ 3 DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS ....................................................................... 3 STATE OF WYOMING AIR QUALITY PERMITS ................................................................................................ 4 CONTACTS ..................................................................................................................................................... 4 pg. 2 Sunroc Corporation DBA Depatco – Etna Pit Dust Management Plan DRAFT V.1 Rev. 2/23/23 INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE This Dust Control and Management Plan (Plan) provides measures to be implemented by Sunroc Corporation DBA Depatco (SRC) to minimize fugitive dust emissions related to crushing, stockpiling, material handling concrete batching and other related activities at the Etna Pit located in Lincoln County, WY. A current copy of this plan will be kept on file and made available to on site personnel. The site consists of 40 acres with an existing gravel pit. The purpose of this Plan is to provide site and regulatory personnel a description of measures that will be implemented to reduce fugitive dust emissions at the Site and meet all applicable local, state, and federal rules regarding fugitive dust emissions. DUST CONTROL FOR ROADS AND OPEN AREAS SRC will implement the following practices for roads and open areas to minimize fugitive particulate matter emissions: • Open areas will be covered with road base material; SRC will ensure the road base surface is maintained so dust generation from this surface is minimized. • Frequently used truck and equipment routes within the yard will be covered with recycled asphalt millings to further reduce dust generation from wheeled vehicles. • Water will be applied to the road surfaces as needed to control fugitive dust emissions. SRC will have a water stand tank on site to deploy water onsite as efficiently as possible. Records of water application will be maintained. • Best Management Practices to limit track out onto public paved highways will be implemented, which may include the installation of a track out pad. DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR MATERIAL STORAGE PILES AND MATERIAL HANDLING To minimize fugitive dust associated with material storage piles and material handling, SRC will implement the following practices for material storage piles and material handling: • Water will be applied to storage piles as needed to control fugitive dust emissions. Once watered, the material develops a crust on the surface which helps prevent wind- blown dust formation. pg. 3 Sunroc Corporation DBA Depatco – Etna Pit Dust Management Plan DRAFT V.1 Rev. 2/23/23 • When possible, material will be taken from the predominant down-wind side of the storage pile to help maintain the crusted surface on the material and reduce wind- blown dust formation. • SRC will use sound judgement when determining the height of material storage piles. • Material will be wetted as needed and drop heights will be minimized during material transfer operations. DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR CRUSHING Crushing and screening of nonmetallic minerals is regulated federally under 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOO – Standards for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants. Under this subpart, SRC is required to keep visible emissions from rock crushers below 12% opacity at the source, based EPA Method 9 procedures. Additionally, screening operations and conveyor transfer points are subject to a 7% opacity limit at the source, based on EPA Method 9 procedures. When crushing, SRC will implement the following practices: • Water application to pre-crushed material as needed. • Operate water sprays at crusher feed and discharge conveyor as needed to meet federal opacity standards. • Crushing equipment opacity certifications will be conducted by Method 9-certified personnel and records will be maintained on file. • Method-9 certified personnel contact information will be listed in this plan and will be available during normal business hours to respond to dust complaints. • Crusher operators will be trained in the contents of the plan and the federal and state requirements regarding non-metallic mineral processing. DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS SRC will implement the following dust control measures to minimize dust emissions from the concrete batch plant: • Install, operate and maintain a dust collection system on the truck loadout point. • Install, operate and maintain a dust filtration system on the cement and fly ash storage silos • Keep aggregate and sand sufficiently wet during material handling processes • Follow control measures for roadways and open areas as listed above pg. 4 Sunroc Corporation DBA Depatco – Etna Pit Dust Management Plan DRAFT V.1 Rev. 2/23/23 STATE OF WYOMING AIR QUALITY PERMITS Prior to commencing crushing operations, SRC will obtain all necessary air quality permits from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. All conditions of the permit, including inspections, visible emission opacity standards and throughput limits, will be strictly adhered to. CONTACTS Clyde Companies Property & Environmental Department - Method 9 Certified Individuals Kamren Garfield – (801) 802-6933 Bill King – (801) 380-8706 Management Contacts Bill Gammell, Clyde Companies Property & Environmental Director – (801) 802-6917 Orlan Lund, Sunroc Corporation Area Manager – (208) 947-1815 Attachment Mining/Reclamation Plan No. 556 ET Chapter 10: Limited Mining Operations for Fifteen Acres or Less of Affected Land Effective Date: Environmental Quality, Dept. of Land Quality - Non Coal 11/20/2013 to Current Rule Type: Reference Number: Current Rules & Regulations 020.0007.10.11202013 Wyoming Administrative Rules Generated 02/04/2020 \ 10 – 1 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY LAND QUALITY DIVISION NONCOAL RULES AND REGULATIONS CHAPTER 10 LIMITED MINING OPERATIONS FOR FIFTEEN ACRES OR LESS OF AFFECTED LAND Section 1. Commencement. (a) At least thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of surface mining operations for the removal of sand, gravel, scoria, limestone, dolomite, shale, ballast, or feldspar from an area of fifteen (15) acres or less of affected land, excluding access roads, a notification shall be submitted by the operator to the Administrator. The notification must be on forms supplied by the Division and shall contain the following: (i) The name, address, and telephone number of the operator. (ii) The written consent for the operation from the surface owner and surface lessee, if any, of the land to be affected. (iii) The location of the area of the operation by legal subdivision, section, township, and range. If there is no other survey, the location by protracted survey, metes and bounds, or claims. (iv) The mineral to be mined. (v) A USGS topographic map: (A) The notification submitted to the Administrator must be accompanied by an original quadrangle map (photo copies or other similar copies are not acceptable unless prior approval is obtained from the Land Quality Division). (B) The following information shall be shown on the quadrangle map: (I) A legal description of the fifteen (15) acres or less of land to be affected. 10 – 2 (II) If any previous mining has taken place, or is taking place, within the fifteen (15) acres or less to be affected, show the location and identity of this mining as an existing mining operation. (III) Show any existing or proposed access or haul roads into, or away from the proposed mining operation. Any roads to be constructed or upgraded by the operator shall be included as part of the operation from that point that they provide exclusive service and shall be covered by a reclamation bond but are not included in the fifteen (15) acres of affected land limitation. (vi) The operator shall provide a description of the proposed mining operation. This description shall include: (A) Number of acres to be affected. (B) Maximum depth to which mining will occur. (C) Depth to groundwater where known. (D) The premining and proposed postmining land use. (vii) A sworn statement that all information contained in the notification is true and correct to the best knowledge of the operator. (b) At least thirty (30) days prior to commencing operations, the operator must notify by mail all surface owners located within one (1) mile of the proposed boundary of the limited mining operation. The surface owner notification must include: (i) A copy of the notification submitted to the Administrator in Subsection (a) above; (ii) A copy of the map submitted in compliance with Subsection (a)(v) above; and (iii) The name, postal address and telephone number of the operator. Section 2. Bond. The operator shall file a bond pursuant to W.S. § 35-11-401(e)(vi)(B) in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre, except for quarries for which the bond amount shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) per acre of affected land. Roads used to access the mining operation must be included in the acreage total when calculating bond amounts. Within ninety (90) days after limited mining operations commence, the Administrator may require the operator to post an additional bond per acre of affected land if 10 – 3 it is determined that such amount is necessary to insure reclamation. The operator shall post the additional bond not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of such notification. Section 3. Annual Reports. The operator shall file annual reports pursuant to W.S. § 35-11-401(k). Section 4. Operation. (a) A sign shall be posted and maintained at the entrance of the operation that, at a minimum, clearly shows: (i) The name, address, and telephone number of the operator; (ii) The name of the operator’s local authorized agent; and (iii) The LQD limited mining operation number. (b) All topsoil from affected lands shall be saved and stockpiled in such a manner to minimize wind and water erosion. Such stockpiles shall be clearly identified by a sign. (c) In no case shall any materials be pushed or dumped over natural escarpments. (d) The affected lands shall not be within three hundred (300) feet of any existing occupied dwelling, home, public building, school, church, community or institutional building, park or cemetery unless the landowner’s consent has been obtained. Section 5. Reclamation. (a) After the mining operations have ceased or within 30 days after the abandonment of the mining operation, the operator shall notify the Administrator of such fact and commence reclamation and restoration. Provided however, that immediate reclamation will not be required if the landowner advises the Department in writing of his intent to further utilize the product of the mine, and if he assumes the obligation of reclamation and furnishes an appropriate bond to the Administrator. (i) The operation will be considered to be abandoned if any of the following occur: (A) The individual, partnership, or corporation conducting the operation goes out of business. (B) No further mining or reclamation work has been done from one annual report to the next. \ 10 – 4 (C) The mineral being mined has been exhausted. (D) The period of time for which the surface owner (or lessee) gave permission has expired and a written extension has not been obtained. (b) The reclamation of the affected lands shall be in accordance with the following: (i) Reclamation shall be consistent with the proposed postmining land use. (ii) On commencement of reclamation the topsoil shall be redistributed evenly over the affected area. (iii) The affected land shall be reclaimed using sound agricultural practices. Surface preparation of affected areas to be seeded, seed types, amounts, methods of seeding and time shall be subjected to approval by the Division prior to seeding. (iv) Mulching and/or fertilization may be required at the Administrator's discretion to ensure revegetation. (v) Petroleum wastes and other toxic materials shall be disposed of by methods which ensure that topsoil, vegetation, surface water and groundwater are not contaminated. (vi) For soft rock operations, final slopes shall be gentle enough to allow for contour seeding and final topography shall be approved by the Division, provided that the final slope shall not be greater than a ratio of 3:1. (vii) For hard rock operations, whenever possible, the highwall shall be reduced to no greater than a 3:1 slope. The operator must demonstrate the stability of any steeper slope or of any remaining highwall, so that the reclaimed area is left in a condition so as not to create a potential erosion problem or safety hazard to the public or wildlife. Slopes, including any remaining highwall, shall be modified to blend as much as possible to the native landscape. Section 6. Transfers The right to operate under a limited mining exemption may be transferred to a new operator with written approval of the existing operator and written acceptance by the Administrator, provided the new operator submits a new notification and bond required for the new operation and assumes the reclamation liability of the existing operator and does not violate the limitations provided in Section 8 below. 10 – 5 Section 7. Release of Bonds and Forfeiture of Bonds. Bond release. Forfeiture and cancellation shall be handled as provided in W.S. §§ 35-11-417 through 35-11-424. Section 8. Limitation of Operations. (a) The operator will not be allowed to: (i) Conduct more than one operation under W.S. § 35-11-401(e)(vi) within adjacent areas when the operations are to mine the same minerals, or (ii) Conduct more than one operation of fifteen (15) acres or less within any six-mile radius when the two operations are to mine the same mineral, so as to circumvent the general requirements of the Environmental Quality Act. The Administrator may allow two operations for the same mineral within the six-mile radius if one of the operations has completed reclamation work and is awaiting bond release. Complete reclamation for the purposes of this section means backfilling, grading, topsoil application and final seeding activities have been completed. Attachment Mining/Reclamation Plan Information SUNROC CORPORATION SITE/RECLAMATION PLAN ETNA PIT, LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING GENERAL 1.The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality has approved a limited mining operation at this site under the plan 566 ET. This plan allows up to 15 acres of disturbance. Upon approval of the Conditional Use Permit Sunroc will convert the limited mining operation to a small mining operation allowing 10 additional disturbance acres per year up to 27.5 acres. 2.The site will be used for sand and gravel extraction, concrete batch plant operation and asphalt plan operation. The asphalt plant, aggregate processing and concrete batch plant will be set up in the bottom of the pit approximately twenty (20) feet below the native ground level. This will aid in reducing noise and the visible operation of the site. The extraction operation will include: a.Removal, stockpiling, and screening topsoil. b.Gravel removal, processing, stockpiling, and transportation off-site. Will maintain 300 feet of separation from any existing home. c.Concrete batch plant operation. Will maintain 1,000 feet of separation from any existing home. d.Asphalt plant operation. Will maintain 1,000 feet of separation from any existing home. 3.Operation of conveyor systems to transport the gravel/sand products for processing. 4.Operation and parking of associated equipment on site including but not limited to the following: a.Bulldozers b.Loaders c.Tack Hoe d.Haul Trucks e.Crushers/Screens f.Asphalt/Concrete Plant 5.Proposed hours of operation are: a. General hours of gravel operation: Monday through Friday, not earlier than 7:00 am and not later than 6:00 pm. b. Extraordinary hours: In the event that a contract (State, County, Federal) requires night-time delivery of materials, such as highway construction, Sunroc requests the ability to operate loaders and trucks for the limit of that contract, twenty-four hours a day seven days a week if required. 6. Sand and gravel products will be stored on site in stockpiles. The sand and gravel stockpiles will be temporary in size, shape, and location dependent upon gravel sales and supply trends. 7. Temporary topsoil stockpiles berms will be constructed along the perimeter of the disturbed areas. A berm will be created and maintained on the southern boundary of the operation. 8. The topsoil stockpiles will remain during the active mining phase and will then be used for final reclamation suitable growth medium. Upon completion of mining activities, the topsoil stockpiles will be spread across the reclaimed area. 9. Fugitive dust will be controlled by watering in-pit roads, access roads and active work areas. Watering will be performed with portable water trucks, sprinklers, and sprays. A fugitive dust control plan will be implemented for the site (attached). 10. Upon final reclamation of mining, the surface will be regraded to a maximum of a 2:1 slope. Disturbed areas will be covered with available topsoil at approximately six inches in depth where applicable. The topsoil will be seeded with a native seed mixture approved by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Revegetation will take place in the spring and fall. 11. A reclamation bond will be approved and held by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. 12. Storm water will be managed through a storm water pollution prevention plan (attached). 13. Lincoln County Weed and Pest shall certify the gravel is weed free and does not contain weeds which will promote noxious weeds where applicable. 14. Rock Farm Road will be upgraded to County subdivision road standards from the pit entrance to US Hwy 89. Attachment Storm Water Plan STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Sunroc Corporation DBA DePatco Etna Pit Prepared for: SUNROC CORPORATION Prepared by CLYDE COMPANIES INC. 730 NORTH 1500 WEST OREM, UT 84057 (801) 802-6900 Storm Water Management Plan 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT .................................................................................... 2 1.2 WAIVER ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) .................................................................. 2 2.1 FACILITY CONTACTS ............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 FACILITY MAPS ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 POLLUTANT SOURCES ......................................................................................................... 3 3.1 INVENTORY OF MATERIALS................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1.1 Practices used to minimize contact of materials with rainfall and runoff .................................... 4 3.1.2 Existing nonstructural controls that reduce pollutants in storm water runoff ............................ 4 3.1.3 Structural controls that reduce pollutants and storm water runoff ............................................... 4 3.2 RISK IDENTIFICATION AND SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL POLLUTANT SOURCES .................................................... 4 3.2.1 Loading and unloading operations ......................................................................................................... 4 3.2.2 Outdoor manufacturing/process activities ........................................................................................... 4 3.2.3 Dust/particle generating activities .......................................................................................................... 5 3.2.4 On-site waste disposal practices ............................................................................................................ 5 3.2.5 Miscellaneous liquid sources/activities ................................................................................................. 5 4.0 MEASURES AND CONTROLS ............................................................................................... 6 4.1 GOOD HOUSEKEEPING ......................................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE ................................................................................................................................. 6 4.3 OTHER CONTROLS ................................................................................................................................................ 6 4.4 INSPECTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 4.5 EMPLOYEE TRAINING ............................................................................................................................................ 7 4.6 RECORD KEEPING AND INTERNAL REPORTING PROCEDURES ........................................................................... 7 APPENDICES A FACILITY CONTACT INFORMATION Storm Water Management Plan 2 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Authorization to Discharge Storm Water Associated With Mineral Mining Activities (Except Fuels) Under the Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit #WYR320000 In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, the federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, facilities located within the State of Wyoming (except areas within the Wind River Reservation where the state does not have jurisdiction) which are or may discharge storm water and related effluents associated with activities related to mineral mining and quarrying (except fuel production), are hereby authorized to discharge to surface waters of the State of Wyoming upon compliance with the requirements of this permit. Discharges are authorized under this permit only after submission of a Notice of Intent to, and receipt of a Letter of Authorization, from the Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division. 1.2 Waiver The facility shall be inspected and evaluated for the necessity of a permit whenever: 1. There is a significant change in the acreage disturbed; or a significant change to the design, construction, operation, or maintenance of on-site facilities that could have a significant effect on the quantity of runoff; 2. The inspection reveals a new discharge of water or one that has not previously been recognized by facility personnel. If the evaluation reveals that the facility is not longer capable of containing runoff, and a significant discharge is found, then a permit shall be acquired and a SWPPP shall be implemented. The SWPPP shall be specific to the site and follow the guidelines as outlined for the sector under which the facility operates (Sector D: Asphalt Manufacturing; Sector E: Concrete Manufacturing; Sector J: Sand and Gravel Operations). 2.0 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Clyde Companies has prepared a general SWMP that is adaptable to most Sunroc facilities. Development, implementation, and maintenance of this SWMP will provide Sunroc with the tools to reduce pollutants contained in storm water at the facility. The primary goals of the SWMP are to: • Identify potential sources of pollutants that affect storm water at the site; • Describe the practices that will be implemented to prevent or control the release of pollutants in storm water; • Evaluate the plan’s effectiveness in reducing the pollutant levels in storm water. • Train employees on effective storm water management Storm Water Management Plan 3 2.1 Facility Contacts A list of facility contacts can be found in Appendix A of the document. 2.2 Facility Maps The site ComplianceGo website contains maps specific to this facility which show: location, size, operations, and runoff environment. 3.0 POLLUTANT SOURCES 3.1 Inventory of Materials Materials used by the facility that have the potential to be present in storm water runoff are listed in the following table. This table includes information regarding material type, chemical and physical description, and the specific regulated storm water pollutants associated with each material. Trade Name Material Chemical/Physical Description Storm Water Pollutants Limestone, marl, chalk White solid Calcium carbonate, turbidity Lime White to slightly yellowish solid Calcium Oxide Clay, sand, shale Solid Silicon, suspended solids, turbidity Bauxite, iron ore, recycled metals Solid Aluminum, iron, tricalcium aluminate, tetracalcium aluminoferrite Silicates Fine powder Dicalcium and tricalcium silicates Gypsum (calcium and sulfur based mineral) White solid Calcium sulfate Waste fuel (motor oil, spent solvents, printing inks, paint residues, cleaning fluids, scrap tires) Various colored liquids, pastes, and solids, petroleum hydrocarbons Mineral oil, petroleum distillates Workability agents, superplasticizers Solid or aqueous solutions Sulfonated melamine-formaldehyde, sulfonated naphthalene, formaldehyde Air-entraining admixtures Liquid Alkyl benzene sulfonates, methyl ester-derived cocamide diethanolamine Admixtures Free flowing granules, gases, solids, liquids Calcium chloride, ethanol amine, diethanolamine Wastewater recovered from truck cleaning Water Oil & grease, solids, hydrochloric acid Storm Water Management Plan 4 Gasoline Colorless, pale brown or pink petroleum hydrocarbon Benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, MTBE Diesel Fuel Nonane, Ethyltoluenes, Naphthalene 2.1.1 Practices used to minimize contact of materials with rainfall and runoff • Material piles are kept in a compact shape to minimize surface area. • Materials are stored on flat areas that do no pond, and on areas that drain into the drainage system whenever possible. No materials are stored within a drainage area. Runoff from material storage areas will be kept on site. 2.1.2 Existing nonstructural controls that reduce pollutants in storm water runoff • Regular maintenance of machinery and equipment minimizes spills and leaks. • Quarterly inspections of petroleum fluid containers to check for leaks and deteriorations. Any leaks identified during the inspection will be immediately cleaned using a dry absorbent. • An emergency spill kit with the supplies necessary to clean a fuel spill is stored in a convenient location near the fueling station area so they will be immediately available in the event of a spill. • A spill prevention plan is implemented as a resource to prevent spills, or in the event of a spill, to aid in the clean-up process. The plan addresses proper procedures and maintenance of the fuel and oil products and equipment and identifies supplies and equipment for quick spill response. 2.1.3 Structural controls that reduce pollutants and storm water runoff • Secondary containments for petroleum liquid containers • Site grading to direct stormwater runoff to the pit or detention areas • Berms to direct stormwater to detention areas and keep stormwater on site • Track out prevention at site egress 3.2 Risk Identification and Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources 3.2.1 Loading and unloading operations • Sediment can fall from loaders while dump trucks are being loaded with soil or aggregate materials. Minor leaks can drain from equipment used at the loading site. 3.2.2 Outdoor manufacturing/process activities • Parking areas: Employees park their vehicles in the parking lot area. Storm water from this area can be potentially contaminated by leaking fluids from the parked vehicles. These contaminants may contain mineral oil, petroleum, distillates, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, and MTBE. • Fueling areas: Fueling activities are performed at the fuel storage areas. Storm water from these areas can be potentially contaminated by fluids leaking from the trucks during refueling activities and spills and leaks at the fueling station. These contaminants may contain mineral oil, petroleum distillates, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, and MTBE. Storm Water Management Plan 5 • Sand and Gravel Truck Loading/Unloading areas: Trucks unload sand and gravel in the sand and gravel truck unloading area. Storm water from this area can be potentially contaminated by fluids leaking on to the gravel surface from the trucks and by sand and gravel spills. These contaminants may contain mineral oil, benzene, toluene, xylene, MTBE, silicon, dissolved solids, suspended solids, calcium sulfate, tricalcium aluminate, and tetracalcium aluminoferrite. • Truck Washout area: Truck drums and the exterior of trucks are cleaned in the truck washout area. Storm water from this area can be potentially contaminated by waste water from truck cleaning operations and by leaking fluids from trucks. These contaminants may contain mineral oil, benzene, MTBE, silicon, suspended solids, calcium sulfate, calcium oxide, sulfonated melamine-formaldehyde, alkyl benzene sulfonates, and methyl-ester-derived cocamide diethanolamine. • Ready Mix Manufacturing area: Concrete is loaded into the ready mix trucks at the ready mix truck loading area. Storm water from this area can be potentially contaminated by leaking fluids from trucks and cement spills or leaks during loading activities. These contaminants may contain benzene, MTBE, calcium oxide, sulfonated melamine-formaldehyde, calcium chloride, ethanol amine. • Asphalt Manufacturing area: Unloading of Sand and gravel and where asphalt and burner fuel is used to manufacture asphalt. Storm water from this area can be potentially contaminated by fluids leaking from the trucks during refueling and unloading activities. These contaminants may contain mineral oil, petroleum distillates, benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene, xylene, and MTBE. 3.2.3 Dust/particle generating activities • Dust is generated as materials are loaded/unloaded, moved from one stockpile to another, and transferred by conveyer belt. Dust is also generated by vehicles traveling on the unpaved roads between facility operations. All roads and materials are sprayed to control fugitive dust and all activities occur within the perimeter of the facility, so the sediments that may contaminate storm water runoff will remain onsite. 3.2.4 On-site waste disposal practices • Sources of waste include office waste, employee lunch waste, small lubricant cans and buckets, cloths used for cleaning, etc… Any of these waste sources could become scattered across the site due to wind, inadequate disposal containers or sloppy employee housekeeping. Trash cans are provided and emptied on a regular basis to ensure no storm water is adversely affected. Dumpsters must have lids and be kept closed. 3.2.5 Miscellaneous liquid sources/activities • Vehicle maintenance takes place in a concrete floored shop when available. All in-shop oil is stored on spill pallets or within a secondary containment area. To avoid spills, all used oil filters, fuel filters, etc. are drained to drums for recycling prior to disposal; in some shops a lube pit is used during maintenance to catch spills; and dry cleanup methods are employed to minimize the chance that storm water will contact maintenance materials. A spill kit is maintained in case a spill occurs during maintenance activities. Storm Water Management Plan 6 4.0 MEASURES AND CONTROLS This section discusses the storm water management controls implemented at the facility and describes the management practices selected to address the areas of concern identified in Section 3 of this SWMP. 4.1 Good Housekeeping Good housekeeping Best Management Practices (BMPs) refers to ongoing or regular practices that ensure that areas of the facility with a potential to contribute pollutants to storm water are kept clean and orderly. The following comprise some of the good housekeeping practices that are routinely followed: • Litter is controlled through employee awareness, trash receptacle placement, and frequent cleanup, among other controls. New employees are instructed in litter control as part of their initial Sunroc training. Wind blown litter and other debris is periodically cleaned up from the entire facility. • Servicing of vehicles and mobile equipment is conducted within the main shop area. Used oil is stored in a tank and is then recycled. All other new and used lubricants, liquids and supplies are inventoried and stored in tanks and drums that are within spill containment. • Fueling takes place in designated areas away from surface water collection areas. • To reduce the chance of spills during fueling, the equipment operator remains at the fueling point while the tank is being filled. All valves are opened immediately prior to, and closed immediately after, fueling. • Tanks and drums are refilled and/or re-supplied between once a day and once a week by a contractor. All tanks and drums are secondarily contained. • A spill kit is maintained on site to absorb any spilled fuel 4.2 Preventive Maintenance • Vehicles, equipment, and machinery are kept in good working order so that their likelihood of discharging fluids that could contact storm water is minimized. • Water systems used in dust control are regularly maintained to avoid small, chronic leaks or larger-volume releases. • Earthen slopes and retention berms/swales are maintained in order to reduce erosion and storm water transport of their materials as well as continue to serve their intended function. • The inspection procedures discussed in Section 4.4 ensure that items requiring maintenance are identified. If maintenance is needed, items are repaired as soon as practicable. During the next inspection, special attention is paid to those items in order to verify that maintenance activities were adequately completed. 4.3 Other Controls All wastes created during operations are removed from the area and disposed of appropriately. No trash or other pollutants will be buried on site. All applicable Federal, State and/or local waste disposal regulations will be complied with. Any gasoline, diesel fuels, lubricants, and other potential pollutants stored on the property are stored in double-walled tanks or will have proper secondary containment. 4.4 Inspections Storm Water Management Plan 7 Once a quarter, material handling and storage areas, drum storage areas, conveyors, hoppers, and stockpile areas are inspected to assure that there are no leaks, fuel or oil deposition areas, or other signs that hydrocarbons are uncontrolled. Storm water control structures and equipment such as berms, sediment control and collection systems, and containment structures are also inspected to ensure continued proper operation. Inspections are conducted quarterly during each of the following periods: January to March, April to June, July to September, and October to December. All water quality inspections will be completed on the ComplianceGo site and signed by the inspector at the time of each inspection. If the inspection report describes deficiencies in pollution control equipment, structures, or procedures, the deficiencies will be corrected as soon as possible following the inspection, and prior to the next anticipated significant storm event. A description of all actions and shall be documented and retained as part of this plan. Sunroc will retain copies of the completed inspection reports for a minimum of three years from the date of inspection. 4.5 Employee Training An employee training program will be developed and implemented to educate employees about the requirements contained in these plans and other plans relating to storm water and spill prevention. This education program will include the following: • Background on the components and goals of storm water pollution prevention • Spill prevention and response • BMPs to be used at the facility • Education on storm water pollution prevention • Other topics considered pertinent during each session. All employees will be required to participate in an annual refresher training course. The training program will be reviewed annually to determine its effectiveness and to make any necessary changes to the program. Training records shall be retained for a minimum of three years. 4.6 Record Keeping and Internal Reporting Procedures Records described in this plan must be retained on site for a minimum of 3 years and shall be made available to the state or federal compliance inspection officer upon request. Additionally, employee training records shall also be maintained. APPENDIX A FACILITY CONTACTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTACTS BILL KING – PROPERTY & ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST……………..801-380-8706 KAMREN GARFIELD – ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST………………….801-802-6933 OPERATIONAL CONTACTS ORLAN LUND – AREA MANAGER ROWDY ALLDRIDGE – AGGREGATE SUPERINTENDENT………………208- Attachment County Subdivision Road Standards LINCOLN COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Prepared to comply with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act Amended: January 20, 2010 Amended: November 4, 2015 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................................................... 1 I-A. Title ..................................................................................................................................... 1 I-B. Authority ............................................................................................................................. 1 I-C. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 1 I-D. Jurisdiction .......................................................................................................................... 1 I-E. Severability .......................................................................................................................... 2 I-H. Appeals ................................................................................................................................ 2 I-I. Amendment of regulations ................................................................................................. 2 II. DIVISIONS OF LAND EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REVIEW …………………………………… ......... 3 II-A. Purpose .............................................................................................................................. 3 II-B. General Criteria to Determine Whether a Proposal is an Attempt to Evade the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (MSPA) [76-3-201, MCA] ............................................................. 3 II-C. Divisions of Land Exempt from Review but Subject to Survey Requirements and Zoning Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 3 II-D. Procedures and Examination of Subdivision Exemptions .................................................. 4 II-E. Prodecdures and Examinations of Subdivisions Exemptions ............................................. 7 II-F. Identification Codes ........................................................................................................... 8 III. PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS ......................................................................................... 9 IV. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS .......................................................... 24 V. FINAL PLAT PROCESS AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................... 30 VI. DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS .................................................................... 34 VI-A. CONFORMANCE WITH REGULATIONS............................................................................ 34 VI-B. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................. 34 VI-C. LANDS UNSUITABLE FOR SUBDIVISION .......................................................................... 34 VI-D. FLOODPLAIN PROVISIONS .............................................................................................. 34 VI-E. LOTS ................................................................................................................................ 35 VI-F. BLOCKS ............................................................................................................................ 35 VI-G. STREETS AND ROADS ..................................................................................................... 36 VI-H. GRADING AND DRAINAGE ............................................................................................. 39 ii VI-I. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS ................................................................................................ 40 VI-J. SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 40 VI-K. SOLID WASTE .................................................................................................................. 40 VI-L. UTILITIES ......................................................................................................................... 41 VI-M WATER COURSE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENTS ............................................................ 42 VI-N. DISPOSITION OF WATER RIGHTS.................................................................................... 43 VI-P. FIRE PROTECTION ........................................................................................................... 45 VI-O. PARKLAND DEDICATION ................................................................................................ 45 VI-Q. NOXIOUS WEEDS............................................................................................................ 49 VI-R. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISIONS CREATED FOR RENT OR LEASE ...................... 49 VI-S. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS ............................. 49 VI-T. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLE (RV) PARKS .................................... 51 VI-U. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS ........................................ 52 VI-V. VARIANCES ..................................................................................................................... 52 VII. DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................ 54 SUPPLEMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS A. Subdivision Action Fee Schedule B. Pre-Application Form C. Subdivision Review Application Form D. Primary Review Criteria Questionnaire E. Preliminary Plat Submittal Checklist F. Fire Risk Assessment Form and Instructions G. Sample and Required Covenants H. Sample Road Maintenance Agreement I. Approved Hammerhead Turnaround Design Alternatives J. Final Plat Application Form K. Subdivision Improvements Agreement Template L. Lincoln County Road Approach Requirements 1 I. GENERAL PROVISIONS I-A. Title These regulations will be known and may be cited as “The Subdivision Regulations of Lincoln County;” hereinafter referred to as “these regulations.” I-B. Authority Authorization for these regulations is contained in the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (MSPA). [Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA.]. I-C. Purpose These regulations are intended to comply with the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (76-3, MCA) and are created to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the subdivision of land; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to lessen congestion in the streets and highways; to provide for adequate light, air, water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation areas, ingress and egress, and other public requirements; to require development in harmony with the natural environment; to promote preservation of open space; to promote cluster development to minimize costs to local citizens by promoting effective and efficient provision of public services; to protect the rights of property owners; and to require uniform monumentation of land subdivisions and transferring interests in real property by reference to a plat or certificate of survey. The word “shall” is always mandatory, and the word “may” indicates use of discretion in making decisions. I-D. Jurisdiction These regulations govern the subdivision of land within the jurisdictional area of the governing body of Lincoln County and governing bodies of incorporated areas. If a proposed subdivision lies within one mile of a third class city or town or within two miles of a second-class city or within three miles of a first class city (as defined by MCA 7-1-4111), the County must submit the preliminary plat to the city or town (or designated agent) for review and comment. If a proposed subdivision lies partly within an incorporated city or town, the preliminary plat must be submitted to, and approved by, both the city or town and the County. If a proposed subdivision is located in a rural school district, the governing body shall provide a summary of the information contained in the subdivision application and preliminary plat to school district trustees. When a proposed subdivision is also proposed to be annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality will combine public hearings and otherwise coordinate the subdivision review process and annexation procedures whenever possible. These regulations supplement all other regulations, and where they are at variance with other laws, regulations, ordinances, or resolutions, the more restrictive requirements apply. Other regulations include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, floodplain regulations, building codes, development codes, and fire codes. 2 I-E. Severability If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or other part of these regulations invalid, that judgment will affect only the part held invalid. I-F Violations Any person, firm, corporation, or other entity that violates any of the provisions of the MSPA or these regulations is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 or by imprisonment in jail for not more than three months or by both fine and imprisonment. Each sale, lease, or transfer, or offer of sale, lease, or transfer of each separate parcel of land in violation of any provision of the MSPA or these regulations shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense. I-G. Transfers of Title – Enforcement Except as provided in 76-3-303, MCA, a final subdivision plat must be filed for record with the county clerk and recorder before title to the subdivided land can be sold or transferred in any manner. The clerk and recorder of the county shall refuse to accept any plat for record that fails to have the approval in proper form. If unlawful transfers are made, the county attorney shall commence action to enjoin further sales or transfers and compel compliance with all provisions of the MSPA and these regulations. The cost of this action shall be imposed against the party not prevailing. After the preliminary plat of a subdivision has been approved or conditionally approved, the subdivider may enter into contracts to sell lots in the proposed subdivision pursuant to provisions set forth in 76-3-303, MCA. I-H. Appeals A preliminary or final plat decision made by the governing body may be appealed to the district court within thirty (30) days of such decision. The application shall specify the grounds upon which the appeal is made. An appeal may be made by the subdivider, a contiguous landowner, an owner of land within Lincoln County who can establish a likelihood of material injury to property or its value, or the County Commissioners. In order to file an appeal, the plaintiff must be aggrieved by the decision, demonstrating that a specific personal and legal interest, as opposed to a general interest has been or is likely to be specifically and injuriously affected by the decision. I-I. Amendment of Regulations Before the governing body amends these regulations it will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Notice of the time and place of the public hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the county not less than 15 days or more than 30 days before the date of the hearing. 3 II. DIVISIONS OF LAND EXEMPT FROM SUBDIVISION REVIEW II-A. Purpose The MSPA provides that certain divisions of land, which would otherwise constitute subdivisions, are exempt from local subdivision review and approval, unless the use of the exemption is an attempt to evade the MSPA. The exemptions are found in Part 2 of Title 76, Chapter 3. These regulations address the more commonly used exemptions. II-B. General Criteria to Determine Whether a Proposal is an Attempt to Evade the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (MSPA) [76-3-201, MCA] The governing body and its agents, when determining whether an exemption is claimed for the purpose of evading the MSPA, shall consider all of the surrounding circumstances. These circumstances include the nature of the claimant’s business, the prior history of the particular tract in question, the proposed configuration of the tracts if the proposed exempt transaction is completed and any pattern of exempt transactions that will result in the equivalent of a subdivision without local government review. The requirements of these regulations and the MSPA do not apply unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading these regulations or the MSPA, or as otherwise specifically provided. II-C. Divisions of Land Exempt from the MSPA Requirements and These Regulations 1. Condominiums constructed on land previously subdivided in compliance with these regulations; or on lots within incorporated cities/towns are exempt from review if: a. The approval of the original subdivision of land expressly contemplated the construction of the condominiums and any applicable park dedication requirements have been met; or b. The condominium proposal is in conformance with applicable local zoning regulations. 2. A division of land is created by order of any court of record in this state or by operation of law or that, in the absence of agreement between the parties to the sale, could be created by an order of any court in the state pursuant to the law of eminent domain, Title 70, Chapter 30. Before a court of record orders a division of land, the court shall notify the governing body of the pending division and allow the governing body to present written comments on the subdivision. 3. A division of land is created to provide security for mortgages, liens, or trust indentures for the purpose of construction, improvements to the land being divided, or refinancing purposes. a. Statement of Intent The intended purpose of this exemption is to allow a landowner to temporarily segregate a smaller parcel from a tract of land for the express purposes of securing financing. b. Use of Exemption: This exemption only applies if the land that is divided is conveyed to the financial or 4 lending institution to which the mortgage, lien, or trust indenture was given, or to a purchaser upon foreclosure of the mortgage, lien, or trust indenture. Any other such transfer or conveyance is considered an evasion of the MSPA. c. Required Materials When this exemption is to be used, the landowner must submit to Administrator: i. the deed, trust indenture or mortgage for the exempted interest (which states that the interest is being created only to secure a construction mortgage, lien or trust indenture); ii. a statement explaining who will have title to and possession of the balance of the original parcel after title to the exempted interest is conveyed; and iii. a signed statement from a lending institution that the creation of the interest is necessary to secure a loan. d. Rebuttable Presumptions The use of this exemption is presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading the MSPA and will be subject to subdivision review if: i. it will create more than one new building site; ii. the financing is not for construction or improvements on the exempted parcel, or for re-financing; iii. the person named in the “statement explaining who would have possession of the remainder parcel if title to the exempted parcel is conveyed” is anyone other than the borrower of funds for construction; iv. title to the exempted interest will not be initially obtained by the lending institution if foreclosure occurs; iv. there exists a prior agreement to default or a prior agreement to purchase only a portion of the original tract; v. it appears that the principal reason the interest is being created is to create a building site and using the interest to secure a loan is a secondary purpose. II-D. Divisions of Land Exempt from Review but Subject to Survey Requirements and Zoning Regulations Unless the method of disposition is adopted for the purpose of evading these regulations or the MSPA, the following divisions of land are not subdivisions under these regulations and the MSPA, but are subject to the surveying requirements of 76-3-401, MCA, and zoning regulations adopted under Title 76 chapters 2 or 3. A division of land may not be made under this section unless the County Treasurer has certified that all real property taxes and special assessments assessed and levied on the land to be divided have been paid. The Clerk and Recorder shall notify the Administrator if a land division described in this section or 76-3-207(1), MCA, is submitted to the Clerk and Recorder prior to the survey being submitted to the Administrator for evasion review. II-D-1. Relocation of Common Boundary [76-3-207(1)(a), MCA] a. Statement of Intent – The intended purpose of this exemption is to allow a change in the location or the elimination of a boundary line between adjoining properties outside of a platted subdivision and to allow transfer of a tract to effect that relocation or elimination without subdivision review. 5 b. Required Information – Certificates of survey claiming this exemption must clearly distinguish between the existing boundary location and, in case of a relocation, the new boundary. This must be accomplished by representing the existing boundary with a dashed line and the new boundary, if applicable, with a solid line. The appropriate certification set forth in ARM 24.183.1104 (1)(f) must be included on the certificate of survey. Certificates of survey showing the relocation of common boundary lines must be accompanied by a quit claim or warranty deed or recordable agreement from adjoining property owners for the entire newly described parcel(s) or that portion of the tract(s) that is being affected. c. Use of Exemption – The proper use of the exemption for relocating common boundary lines is to establish a new boundary between adjoining parcels of land outside of a platted subdivision, without creating an additional parcel. The exemption may not be used if the division of land would result in the permanent creation of one or more additional parcels of land. d. Rebuttable Presumptions – The use of this exemption is presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading the MSPA if the reviewing agent determines that the documentation submitted according to this section does not support the stated reason for relocation. II-D-2. A Gift or Sale to a Member of the Immediate Family [76-3-207(1)(b), MCA] a. Statement of Intent – This exemption allows a landowner to convey one parcel outside of a platted subdivision to each member of his or her immediate family, without local subdivision review. A single parcel may be conveyed to each member of the immediate family under this exemption in each county where the landowner owns property. The term “immediate family” means the spouse, children (by blood or adoption), or parents of the grantor [76-3-103(8), MCA]. This exemption may be used only by grantors who are natural persons, and not by non-corporal legal entities such as corporations, partnerships, and trusts. b. Required Information – A certificate of survey (or recording of an instrument of conveyance) that uses this exemption to create a parcel for conveyance to a family member must show the name of the grantee, relationship to the landowner, and the parcel to be conveyed under this exemption, and the landowner’s certification of compliance [ARM 24.183.1104(1)(f)]. Also, the certificate of survey or instrument of conveyance must be accompanied by a deed or other conveying document. c. Use of Exemption – See Statement of Intent above. d. Rebuttable Presumptions – The use of this exemption is presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading the MSPA and will be subject to subdivision review if: i. Use of this exemption is being applied to divide a tract that was previously created through the use of an exemption; ii. Use of this exemption to divide tracts that appear to have been created as part of an overall development plan with such characteristics as common roads, utility easements, protective covenants, open space or common marketing or promotional plan; 6 iii. A transfer of a parcel of land by one family member to another, by quitclaim deed, followed by an attempted use of this exemption; iv. The grantee attempts to sell the property back to the original owner. II-D-3. Divisions of Land Proposed for Agricultural Use Only [76-3-207(1)(c), MCA] a. Statement of Intent – This exemption is intended to allow a landowner to create a parcel for gift, sale, or agreement to buy and sell, outside a platted subdivision, without local review if the parcel will be used only for the production of livestock or agricultural crops and no residential, commercial or industrial buildings, which require water or sewer, will be built on it. b. Required Information – A certificate of survey that uses this exemption to create a parcel for agricultural use only requires a covenant running with the land in accordance with 76-3-207(1)(c), MCA, and a signed and acknowledged recitation of the covenant on the face of the survey [ARM 24.183.1104(f)(iii)]. The certificate of survey must be accompanied by a separate, recordable, document reciting the covenant. c. Use of Exemption – i. "Agricultural purpose,” for purposes of these evasion criteria, means the use of land for raising crops, livestock, or timber, and specifically excludes residential structures and facilities for commercially processing agricultural products. ii. The landowner must demonstrate that the planned use of the exempted parcel is for agricultural purposes and that no residential, commercial, or industrial buildings have been or will be built on it, by entering into a covenant running with the land and revocable only by mutual consent of the governing body and the property owner that the divided land will be used exclusively for agricultural purposes. The covenant must be signed by the property owner, the buyer, and the members of the governing body. iii. Any change in use of the land for anything other than agricultural purposes subjects the parcel to subdivision review. iv. Residential, commercial, or industrial structures, including facilities for commercial processing of agricultural products, may not be utilized, constructed or erected on parcels created under this exemption unless the covenant is revoked. II-D-4. Relocation of Common Boundaries Involving Platted Subdivisions [76-3-207 (1)(d), (e) and (2)(a), MCA] a. Statement of Intent i. This exemption addresses the relocation of common boundaries within subdivisions platted since July 1, 1973, or the relocation of a common boundary between a single lot in a platted subdivision and adjoining land outside a platted subdivision (but a restriction or requirement on either continues to apply), without review. ii. If a change is made to a platted subdivision which results in an increase in the number of lots or redesigns or rearranges six or more lots, the governing body must 7 review and approve the amended plat and an amended plat must be filed with the clerk and recorder. b. Use of exemption – Relocation of a common boundary between a single lot in a platted subdivision and adjoining land outside a platted subdivision [76-3-207(1)(e), MCA] is allowed, because no additional parcels are created. Subdivision review is not necessary because the relocation does not create any additional division of land. c. Rebuttable presumption – The use of this exemption is presumed to have been adopted for the purpose of evading the MSPA and will be subject to subdivision review if i. the resulting lots are inconsistent with the approved subdivision and the uses in it; ii. the resulting lots do not comply with existing zoning, covenants, and/or deed restrictions. II-E. Procedures and Examination of Subdivision Exemptions II-E-1. Submittal Any person seeking exemption from the requirements of the MSPA shall submit to the Administrator (1) a certificate of survey (or, if a survey is not required, an instrument of conveyance); and (2) evidence of, and an affidavit affirming, entitlement to the claimed exemption. For purposes of 76-3-207, MCA, when a parcel of land for which an exemption from subdivision review is claimed is being conveyed under a contract-for-deed, the terms “property owner,” “landowner,” and “owner” mean the seller of the parcel under the contract-for-deed (ARM 24.183.1104) II-E-2. Examination When a division of land for which an exemption is claimed is submitted to the Administrator, she/he shall cause the documents to be examined by the designated agents of the governing body (e.g., county attorney, sanitarian, treasurer, and clerk and recorder). The Administrator and governing body agents shall examine the claimed exemption to verify that it is the proper use of the claimed exemption and complies with the requirements set forth in the MSPA, the Montana Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, and these regulations. a. Landowners or their agents are encouraged to meet with the Administrator to discuss whether a proposed land division or use of an exemption is in compliance with the criteria in this Section. b. The Administrator shall consider all of the surrounding circumstances when determining whether an exemption is claimed for the purpose of evading the MSPA. These circumstances may include but are not limited to: the nature of the claimant’s business, the prior history of the particular tract in question, the proposed configuration of the tracts if the proposed exempt transaction is completed, and any pattern of exempt transactions that will result in the equivalent of a subdivision without local government review . c. If the Administrator finds that the proposed use of the exemption complies with the statutes and the criteria set forth in this section, the Administrator shall notify the 8 governing body and advise the clerk and recorder to file the certificate of survey or record the instrument of conveyance and accompanying documents. If the Administrator finds that the proposed use of the exemption does not comply with the statutes and criteria, the Administrator shall advise the clerk and recorder not to file or record the documents, and the materials will be returned to the landowner. d. Within 30 calendar days, the Administrator shall make a written determination of whether the use of the exemption is intended to evade the purposes of the MSPA, explaining the reasons for the determination. II-E-3. Appeals a. Any person whose proposed use of an exemption has been denied by the Administrator because the proposed division of land has been deemed an attempt to evade the MSPA, and these regulations, may appeal the Administrator’s decision to the governing body. The person may request a hearing, and may submit additional evidence to show that the use of the exemption in question is not intended to evade the MSPA or these regulations, and, thereby rebut a presumption. b. If the governing body concludes that the evidence and information overcome the presumption that the exemption is being invoked to evade the MSPA or these regulations, it may authorize the use of the exemption in writing. A certificate of survey claiming an exemption from subdivision review, which otherwise is in proper form, and which the governing body has found not to be an attempt to evade the MSPA or these regulations, may be filed (or an instrument of conveyance recorded) if it is accompanied by written authorization of the governing body. c. If the person proposing to use an exemption chooses not to rebut a presumption when the Administrator deems the use of the exemption an attempt to evade the MSPA and these regulations, or if the governing body determines that the proposed use of an exemption was for the purpose of evading the MSPA or these regulations, the governing body shall inform the landowner proposing to use the exemption of their decision and inform the landowner they may submit a subdivision application for the proposed land division. II-F. Identification Codes To assist in the implementation of this review process and to monitor those parcels by exemption the Clerk and Recorder may cause the following identification codes to be added to the numbering of recorded certificates of survey filed after the effective date of these regulations. CO … Court Order [76-3-201(1)(a), MCA] ME … Mortgage Exemption [76-3-201(1)(b), MCA] LE … Life Estate [76-3-201(1)(e), MCA] RB … Relocation of Common Boundary [76-3-207(1)(a), MCA] FC … Family Conveyance [76-3-207(1)(b), MCA] AE … Agricultural Exemption [76-3-207(1)(c), MCA] AL … Aggregation of Lots [76-3-207(e), MCA] 9 III. PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS The following charts summarize the preliminary plat process for minor, subsequent minor and major subdivisions: BASIC PROCEDURE FOR (FIRST) MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW Step 1 Pre-Application meeting between subdivider and Lincoln County Planning staff. Within 30 days of receipt of pre-application request and materials. Step 2 Element Review: Subdivider submits a complete subdivision application to the Administrator for element review within 180 days of pre-application meeting (otherwise a new pre-application meeting is required). Maximum five (5) working days. Step 3 Sufficiency Review: After all elements of the application are determined to be contained within the application, the subdivider submits the application to Planning staff for Sufficiency Review. Reviewing agencies, appropriate neighborhood organizations, and other entities identified by the planning office will be contacted for comment by Planning staff. Maximum fifteen (15) working days. Step 4 Governing Body Review: After the subdivision application is deemed sufficient, the subdivider submits three (3) copies [or 2 copies and a CD] of the complete application and supporting materials to the planning office for governing body review. Maximum thirty-five (35) working days, statutory limit. Step 5 Planning Staff Report. Step 6 Governing Body Public Meeting and Decision. Step 7 Written Decision Within 30 working days of Governing Body action 10 BASIC PROCEDURE FOR SUBSEQUENT MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW Step 1 Pre-Application meeting between subdivider and Lincoln County Planning staff. Within 30 days of receipt of pre-application request and materials. Step 2 Element Review: Subdivider submits a complete subdivision application to the Administrator for element review within 180 days of pre-application meeting (otherwise a new pre- application meeting is required). Maximum five (5) working days. Step 3 Sufficiency Review: After all elements of the application are determined to be contained within the application, the subdivider submits the application to Planning staff for Sufficiency Review. Reviewing agencies, appropriate neighborhood organizations, and other entities identified by the planning office will be contacted for comment by Planning staff, including adjacent property owners. Maximum fifteen (15) working days. Step 4 Governing Body Review: After the subdivision application is deemed sufficient, the subdivider submits three (3) copies [or 2 copies and a CD] of the complete application and supporting materials to the planning office for governing body review. Maximum forty-five (45) working days Step 5 Planning Staff Report. Step 6 Governing Body Review and Decision. Step 7 Written Decision Within 30 working days of Governing Body action 11 BASIC PROCEDURE FOR MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW Step 1 Pre-Application meeting between subdivider and Lincoln County Planning staff. Within 30 days of receipt of pre-application request and materials. Step 2 Element Review: Subdivider submits a complete subdivision application to the Administrator for element review within 180 days of pre-application meeting (otherwise a new pre- application meeting is required). Maximum five (5) working days. Step 3 Sufficiency Review: After all elements of the application are determined to be contained within the application, the subdivider submits the application to Planning staff for Sufficiency Review. Reviewing agencies, appropriate neighborhood organizations, and other entities identified by the planning office will be contacted for comment by Planning staff. Maximum fifteen (15) working days. Step 4 Governing Body Review: After the subdivision application is deemed sufficient, the subdivider submits twelve (12) copies [or 11 copies and a CD] of the complete application and supporting materials to the planning office for governing body review. Maximum sixty (60) working days for subdivisions of 6-49 lots; eighty (80) working days Step 5 Planning Staff Report. for subdivisions of 50 lots or more (M.C.A. 76-3-604(4)). Step 6 Planning Board Review – Public Meeting Step 7 Governing Body Public Hearing and Decision. Step 8 Written Decision Within 30 working days of Governing Body action III-A Pre-Application 1. Prior to submittal of a subdivision application, the subdivider shall provide a written request for a pre-application meeting with the subdivision administrator (hereafter, Administrator). The meeting shall occur within 30 days after the subdivider submits a written request for the meeting to the Administrator. 2. At the time of the pre-application meeting request, the subdivider shall provide to the Administrator a completed pre-application form and the following information: 12 a. An Existing Conditions Map drawn to a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet or larger showing information on the current status of the site, including: i. Location; ii. Approximate boundaries of existing parcels of record; iii. Description of general terrain; iv. Natural features, e.g., lakes, streams, and riparian vegetation; v. Existing structures and improvements; vi. Approximate location of existing utility lines and facilities; vii. Approximate location of existing easements and rights-of-way; and viii. Parks and open space. b. A preliminary drawing at a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet or larger showing information on the proposed subdivision including: i. Approximate lot boundaries; ii. Building/lot layout; iii. Proposed access, including approximate location of easements and rights-of-way; iv. Proposed public improvements; v. General location of proposed utility lines and facilities and; vi. Parks and open space, if applicable. c. General maps and information including; i. A brief narrative of the project; ii. Zoning map with site identified, if applicable; iii. Floodplain map with site identified, if applicable; iv. Vicinity sketch showing adjacent uses with site identified; v. USGS Topographic map with site identified; vi. Most current aerial photograph with site identified. 3. At the pre-application meeting: a. the Administrator shall identify, for informational purposes, the state laws, local regulations and growth policy provisions that may apply to the subdivision review process including, but not limited to, zoning regulations, floodplain regulations, Wildland Urban Interface Guidelines, access standards, Living with Wildlife guidelines, and Best Management Practices construction guidelines; b. the Administrator shall provide the subdivider with a list of public utilities, local, state and federal agencies, and any other entities that have an interest in the proposed subdivision and that may be contacted for comment by the Administrator on the subdivision application. The Administrator shall also identify the timeframes that the public utilities, agencies, and other entities are given to respond; and c. the Administrator shall provide the subdivider with information on how to obtain a copy of the preliminary plat application forms and identify particular additional information the Administrator anticipates will be required for review of the subdivision application. This does not limit the ability of the Administrator to request additional information at a later time. 13 4. Unless the subdivider submits a subdivision application within 180 days of this pre-application meeting, the subdivider must request a new pre-application meeting prior to submitting the subdivision application. III-A-2. Permission to Enter The governing body or its designated agent(s) or affected agencies identified during the pre-application meeting may investigate, examine, and evaluate the site of the proposed subdivision to verify information provided by the subdivider and to subsequently monitor compliance with any conditions if the preliminary plat is approved conditionally. The submission of a subdivision application constitutes a grant of permission by the subdivider for the governing body, its agents, and affected agencies to enter the subject property. This consent applies to members of the public attending a noticed public meeting for a site visit. III-A-3. Construction a. Timing – No construction, development or alteration of the site, including grading or excavation relating to improvements on a proposed subdivision shall proceed from the time the application has been submitted until the governing body has granted preliminary approval of the proposed subdivision plat. With the exception of fuels reduction and timber harvesting, all historic, cultural, archaeological and natural resources on the site shall remain unaltered. Riparian vegetation and wetlands may not be damaged or removed. Nothing in this section should be construed to prevent the following: i. Work related to testing, analytical or monitoring activities that may be required by these regulations or are relevant to the processing of the subdivision application, OR ii. Previously scheduled work, unrelated to the subdivision proposal described in the application, related to utility maintenance or utility construction, OR iii. The construction of a single residence which would otherwise be a permitted use and the construction of any necessary improvements and closely related outbuildings that are necessary to serve the single residence, OR iv. Activities identified by the subdivider as being likely to occur after the subdivision application has been submitted and which have been approved in writing by the Planning Director. b. Enforcement – Construction or alteration of resources on site as described above will render a subdivision application insufficient for failure of the application to accurately describe the current status of the land proposed for subdivision and must be addressed through submission of an amended application pursuant to Section III-A-4.c prior to further processing of the application. Restoration of any resource alteration, as described above, may be required as a condition of subdivision approval for an amended application. 14 III-A-4. Review Process Upon submittal of a complete preliminary plat and subdivision application pursuant to Section IV of these regulations the following review process begins. In the event an application is not resubmitted during the Element or Sufficiency review periods within 180 days of receiving the Administrator’s letter of deficiency, a new application and associated review fees will be required. a. Element Review i. Within 5 working days of receipt of a subdivision application preliminary plat and review fee, the Administrator shall determine whether the application contains all of the applicable materials required by these regulations and shall give written notice to the subdivider of the Administrator's determination. A. If the Administrator determines that elements are missing from the application, the Administrator shall return the application and identify those elements in the notification, and no further action shall be taken on the application by the Administrator until the application is resubmitted. B. The subdivider may correct the deficiencies and resubmit the application. C. If the subdivider corrects the deficiencies and resubmits the application the Administrator shall have 5 working days to notify the subdivider whether the resubmitted application contains all the applicable materials required. D. This process shall be repeated until the subdivider submits an application containing all the applicable materials required, or the application is withdrawn. b. Sufficiency Review i. Within 15 working days after the Administrator notifies the subdivider that the application contains all of the required elements as provided in subsection (a) above, the Administrator shall determine whether the application and required elements contain detailed, supporting information that is sufficient to allow for the review of the proposed subdivision under these regulations and shall give written notification to the subdivider of the Administrator's determination. A. If the Administrator determines that the information in the application is not sufficient to allow for review of the proposed subdivision, the Administrator shall identify specific required information in its notification and return the application to the subdivider, and no further action shall be taken on the application by the Administrator until the material is resubmitted. B. The subdivider may correct the deficiencies and resubmit the application, or withdraw the application. C. If the subdivider corrects the deficiencies and resubmits the application. The Administrator shall have 15 working days to notify the subdivider whether the resubmitted application and required elements contain detailed, supporting information that is sufficient to allow for review of the proposed subdivision under these regulations. 15 D. This process shall be repeated until the subdivider submits an application that contains detailed, supporting information that is sufficient for review of the proposed subdivision under the provisions of these regulations, or the application is withdrawn. ii. A determination that an application contains sufficient information for review does not ensure that the proposed subdivision will be approved or conditionally approved by the governing body and does not limit the ability of the Administrator, planning board, or the governing body to request additional information during the review process. iii. A determination of sufficiency by the Administrator pursuant to this subsection does not limit the DEQ from requiring additional water and sanitation information as part of the DEQ review of water and sanitation information. c. Amended Applications If the subdivider changes the subdivision application or preliminary plat after the planning office makes a determination of sufficiency but before the governing body has rendered a decision, the subdivider shall submit the amended application to the Administrator for review. Changes made by the subdivider in response to the Administrator, agencies or public comment will not force a suspension of the review period by more than ten (10) working days. i. Within five (5) working days of receiving the amended application or preliminary plat, the Administrator shall determine whether the changes to the subdivision application or preliminary plat are material. ii. The review period is suspended while the Administrator considers whether the changes to the subdivision application or preliminary plat are material. iii. If the Administrator determines the changes are not material, the review period resumes when the Administrator mails notice of the decision to the subdivider. iv. If the Administrator determines the changes are material, it may either require the subdivider to schedule a new pre-application meeting and resubmit the application as a new subdivision application or proceed with the review period. v. By making changes to a pending subdivision application or preliminary plat, the subdivider consents to suspension of the review period. vi. The following changes, although not an exhaustive list, may be considered material: A. Configuration or number of lots; B. Road layout; C. Water and/or septic proposals; D. Configuration of park land or open spaces; E. Easement provisions; and F. Designated access. d. Determination of Amended Applications – Appeal Process A subdivider whose subdivision application or preliminary plat has been deemed materially changed by the planning office may appeal the decision to the governing body by written notice within ten (10) working days. The subdivider may request a hearing and 16 may submit additional evidence to show that the changes to the preliminary plat are not material. i. The review period is suspended until the governing body decision on the appeal is made. ii. If the governing body concludes that the evidence and information demonstrate that the changes to the subdivision application or preliminary plat are material, the governing body shall determine whether the subdivision application should be resubmitted. iii. If the governing body concludes that the evidence and information demonstrate that the changes to the subdivision application or preliminary plat are not material, the review period resumes as of the date of the decision. iv. By appealing the decision of the planning office, the subdivider agrees to suspension of the review period. e. Applicable Regulations Subdivision review and approval, conditional approval or denial shall be based on those regulations in effect at the time a subdivision application and preliminary plat is deemed to contain sufficient information for review. If regulations change during the element or sufficiency review, the determination of whether the application contains the required elements and sufficient information, and the subdivision review, shall be based on the new regulations. f. Statutory Deadlines – Governing Body Decision Once the Administrator has given notice to the subdivider that the application is determined to be sufficient for review, the review period for minor or major subdivisions begins (see tables above). Notification constitutes the date when the Administrator sends notice to the subdivider. Subsequent minor subdivisions will be reviewed pursuant to the major subdivision process. g. Public Agency and Utility Review Review and comment by public agencies or utilities may not delay the governing body’s action on the subdivision application beyond the 35- or 60- or 80-working day review period. The governing body will make these comments available to the subdivider and to the general public upon request. If, during the review of the application, the Administrator or the planning board contacts a public utility, agency, or other entity that was not included on the list provided during the pre-application meeting, the Administrator shall notify the subdivider of the contact and the timeframe for response h. Subdivider’s Preference for Mitigation No later than ten (10) days before the meeting or hearing at which the governing body is to consider the subdivision application and preliminary plat, the subdivider may submit in writing to the governing body comments on and responses to the planning board or staff recommendations. This document may include the subdivider’s alternative proposals, if any, for mitigating the impacts identified in the recommendations. The governing body will consult with the subdivider and will give due weight and consideration to the subdivider’s expressed preference. 17 i. Mitigation of Impacts i. The governing body may require the subdivider to design the subdivision to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts identified through the review process of the subdivision application without unreasonably restricting a landowner's ability to develop the land. The governing body shall issue written findings to justify the reasonable mitigation required under this section. ii. The governing body shall consider the following in determining the appropriate mitigation: A. Whether unmitigated impacts of a proposed development are unacceptable, precluding approval of the plat. B. The expressed preference of the subdivider. iii. Although a governing body may not deny approval of a subdivision based solely on the subdivision's impacts on educational services, it may require mitigation of impacts created by the subdivision. j. Governing Body Decision and Documentation i. Prerequisites to Approval: The governing body may not approve or conditionally approve a subdivision application and preliminary plat unless the proposed subdivision: A. Provides easements for the location and installation of any planned utilities; B. Provides legal and physical access to each parcel within the subdivision and the notation of that access on the applicable plat and any instrument transferring the parcel; C. Assures that all required public improvements will be installed before final plat approval, or that such installation after final plat approval will be guaranteed as provided by these Regulations; and D. Will comply with the requirements of 76-3-504, MCA, regarding the disclosure and disposition of water rights. ii. Consideration – Standards In approving, conditionally approving or denying a subdivision application and preliminary plat, the governing body and/or planning board shall consider whether the proposed subdivision complies with: A. These regulations; B. Any other applicable regulations; and C. The Montana Subdivision and Platting Act Primary Review Criteria: 1. Impact on agriculture; 2. Impact on agricultural water user facilities; 3. Impact on local services; 4. Impact on natural environment; 5. Impacts on wildlife; 6. Impacts on wildlife habitat; and 7. Impacts on public health and safety. 18 iii. Consideration – Evidence In making its decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny a proposed subdivision, the governing body and/or planning board may consider the following, as applicable: A. The subdivision application and preliminary plat; B. The Primary Review Criteria Report (EA), when applicable; C. The Summary of Probable Impacts and Mitigation; D. The Lincoln County Growth Policy; E. Comments, evidence and discussions at the public hearing(s); F. The planning staff report and recommendation; G. Planning Board recommendation; and H. Water and sanitation information provided or public comment received regarding the water and sanitation information only if the conditional approval or denial is based on existing subdivision, zoning, floodplain or other regulations that the governing body has the authority to enforce. 1. For a proposed subdivision that will create one or more parcels containing 20 acres or more, the governing body may condition approval of the final plat upon the subdivider demonstrating that there is an adequate water source and at least one area for a septic system and a replacement drain field for each lot. This demonstration to the local reviewing authority is to evaluate the ability to develop lots at the platting stage and is no guarantee that a source of water or a location for a septic system or drain fields will be available when the lots are developed. I. Any additional information authorized by law. iv. Documentation of Governing Body Decision In rendering its decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny the proposed subdivision, the governing body shall issue written Findings of Fact that discuss and weigh the proposed subdivision’s compliance with subsection (ii) and (iii) above. Additionally, it shall send the subdivider a letter, with the appropriate signature, and make the letter available to the public. The letter shall: A. Contain information regarding the appeal process for the denial or imposition of conditions; B. Identify the regulations and statutes that are used in reaching the decision to approve, deny or impose conditions and explain how they apply to the decision; C. Provide the facts and conclusions that the governing body relied on in making its decision and reference documents, testimony or other materials that form the basis of the decision; D. Provide the conditions that apply to the preliminary plat approval and that must be satisfied before the final plat may be approved; and E. Include public comment relative to water and sanitation issues. 19 III-A-5. Governing Body Hearing a. Upon receipt of the planning board’s recommendations on major subdivisions including subsequent minors, the governing body shall hold a hearing to review the subdivision application. b. All comments and documents regarding the subdivision shall be submitted to the Administrator, rather than to the governing body directly, to be forwarded to the governing body. c. The governing body shall determine whether public comments or documents presented for consideration at the governing body's review constitute either: i. information or analysis of information that was presented at the planning board hearing on the subdivision application that the public has had a reasonable opportunity to examine and on which the public has had a reasonable opportunity to comment, in which case the governing body shall proceed to its decision whether to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed subdivision; or ii. new information or analysis of information that has never been submitted as evidence or considered by the planning board at a meeting on the subdivision application, in which case the governing body shall proceed as set forth in subsection (d) below. d. If the governing body determines that public comments or documents presented at the hearing constitute new information or an analysis of information regarding the subdivision application that has never been submitted as evidence or considered by the planning board at the public hearing on the subdivision application, the governing body shall determine whether the public comments or documents are relevant and credible with regard to the governing body's decision, pursuant to subsections (e) and (f) below. i. If the governing body determines the information or analysis of information is either not relevant or not credible, then the governing body shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the proposed subdivision without basing its decision on the new information or analysis of information; or ii. If the governing body determines the new information or analysis of information is relevant and credible, then the governing body shall schedule a subsequent public hearing. iii. At the subsequent hearing the governing body shall consider only the new information or analysis of information that may have an impact on the findings and conclusions that the governing body will rely upon in making its decision on the proposed subdivision. e. New information or analysis of information is considered to be relevant if it may have an impact on the findings and conclusions that the governing body will rely upon in making its decision on the proposed subdivision. 20 f. New information or analysis of information is considered to be credible if it is based on one or more of the following: i. physical facts or evidence; ii. documented personal observations, e.g. photographs; iii. evidence provided by a person with professional competency in the subject matter, e.g. professional engineer, doctorate; or iv. documented and submitted scientific data. III-A-6. Subsequent Public Hearing a. If a subsequent public hearing is held, it must be held within 45 days of the governing body's determination to schedule a subsequent hearing. The governing body shall consider only the new information or analysis of information that may have an impact on the findings and conclusions that the governing body will rely upon in making its decision on the proposed subdivision. i. The governing body shall give notice of the times, dates and locations of the hearings by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county not less than 15 days prior to the dates of the hearings. ii. At least 15 days prior to the dates of the hearings, the Administrator shall give notices of the hearings by certified mail to the subdivider. iii. At least 15 days prior to the dates of the hearings, the Administrator shall give notices of the hearings by certified mail to, each adjoining landowner to the land included in the preliminary plat, and each purchaser under contract for deed of property immediately adjoining the land included in the preliminary plat. b. If a subsequent public hearing is held, the 60 or 80-working day review period is suspended as of the date of the governing body's decision to schedule a subsequent hearing. The review period resumes on the date of the governing body's next scheduled public meeting for which proper notice for the public meeting on the subdivision application can be provided. III-A-7. Effect of Approval of Application and Preliminary Plat. a. Upon approving or conditionally approving an application and preliminary plat, the governing body shall provide the subdivider with a dated and signed statement of approval. This approval shall be for 3 calendar years. At the end of this period the governing body may, at the request of the subdivider, extend its approval for 1 calendar year. The governing body may extend its approval for a period of more than 1 year if that approval period is included as a specific condition of a written agreement between the governing body and the subdivider, according to 76-3-610 M.C.A. 21 b. After the application and preliminary plat are approved, the governing body may not impose any additional conditions as a prerequisite to final plat approval unless the preliminary plat approval expires. However clarification, modification, or elimination of conditions may be made as warranted provided they are consistent with the original intent of the findings of facts for the subdivision. c. The governing body may withdraw approval or conditional approval of an application and preliminary plat if it determines that information provided by the subdivider, and upon which the approval or conditional approval was based, is inaccurate. III-B. Review Procedure for Subdivisions Created for Lease/Rent or Condominiums (Applies to 3 or more dwelling units) 1. Review and Approval Subdivisions created for lease or rent and condominium subdivisions (not exempt pursuant to Section II above) are exempt from the surveying and filing requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act but must be submitted for review and approved by the governing body before portions thereof may be rented or leased or before a Declaration of Condominium may be filed. Review and approval will be as outlined above. 2. Improvements Before any portion of a rental or lease subdivision may be rented or leased the subdivider shall have installed all required improvements. 3. Final Plan Review In lieu of filing a final plat, the subdivider shall submit a plan conforming to the requirements for preliminary plats specified in Section IV. The plan shall show the lot layout and the typical location of the manufactured home, recreational vehicle or other unit on the lot. The subdivider shall submit the plan to the Planning Department for review to insure that it conforms to the approved preliminary plan. 4. DEQ License Manufactured housing communities and recreational vehicle parks are required to be licensed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality under the provision of Title 50, Chapter 52, MCA. III-C. Planned Unit Developments The intent of this section is to provide flexibility in certain subdivision standards, allowing the subdivider creativity in subdivision design using a concept which clusters development, so that the cost of installing and maintaining roads, water and sewer lines, and utility services is minimized while open space, the natural terrain including natural drainages and vegetation, and unique natural features are preserved to the maximum extent possible. The PUD concept promotes the planning of land to allow for an individual use such as residential or for a harmonious combination such as a mixture of residential and commercial uses. 22 1. Designation as PUD – A PUD development must comply with the provisions of these regulations, except as outlined below. To obtain designation of a subdivision as a PUD, the subdivider shall submit to the planning office the following: a. A written request that the plan of the proposed subdivision be reviewed as a PUD; b. A layout plan showing the proposed location and use of lots and structures and, if appropriate, the location and number of parking spaces; c. A sketch plan of the proposed subdivision containing all information requested in Section III-A, Pre-application Procedures; d. A description of open space, recreational facilities, roads, and other facilities proposed to be under common ownership; e. Proposed restrictive covenants, if any; f. A description of proposed form of property ownership within the development; g. A statement describing measures to be taken to assure permanence and maintenance of open space and other facilities to be held in common ownership; h. A schedule showing street and utility improvement completion dates; i. A description of all proposed variations from the requirements and provisions of Section VI: Subdivision Design Standards; and j. Any additional information that the Planning Department may reasonably require. 2. Criteria for Designation – The Planning Department shall review the information and proposed plan and, before designating the subdivision a PUD, shall determine that the development plan promotes the clustering of individual building sites, conforms to the definition and intent of this section, and accomplishes at least four of the following: a. Preserves, to the maximum extent possible, the natural characteristics of the land, including topography, vegetation, and streams or other bodies of water; b. Provides for economical development of streets and other public improvements; c. Protects important wildlife habitat or important historic sites or structures, and preserves productive agricultural land, open space, or riparian areas; d. Provides for dedication and development of common open space for recreational purposes; e. Provides developed facilities for recreational purposes. III-D Phased Development A project may be phased over a period which exceeds three (3) years if the developer provides a detailed plan for the future phases of the subdivision and the proposed timing of the phasing. The governing body reserves the right to impose additional conditions, which require compliance with regulations in existence at the time that each phase is brought before the governing body for review. 1. The subdivider may propose, as part of the preliminary plat approval process, phasing of 23 two (2) or more final plats. If phasing of the final plats is proposed, the preliminary plat must be accompanied by a phasing plan which designates which lots and improvements shall be filed with each specific phase and a legend that lists each phase and the specific final plat filing deadline for each phase. 2. Each phase must be fully capable of functioning with all the required improvements in place in the event the future phases are not completed or completed at a much later time. 3. When phasing is not indicated on the preliminary plat, the final plat shall be submitted for the entire area shown on the preliminary plat. If the subdivider desires to establish phases following approval of the preliminary plat, a new preliminary plat delineating the phases and establishing the schedule must be submitted and approved by the governing body. 4. Modifications to an approved phasing plat or schedule shall require the approval of the governing body. 5. Final plats of subdivisions approved for phased development shall be filed in accordance with the approval. Final plat approval for each subsequent phase will be contingent upon the completion of all improvements in each preceding phase and acceptance of those improvements by the governing body. 24 IV. PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Along with the requisite fees, the following information shall be submitted for preliminary plat review (NOTE: If a manufactured housing community, RV Park or condominium development is proposed, provide a plan with all applicable information required on a preliminary plat.): A. Completed Subdivision Application B. Preliminary Plat clearly labeled “Preliminary Plat” conforming to the following: 1. Format: one (1) standard format (24x36 with 1 ½ inch margin on binding side); and one reduced to 11x17. Each sheet of the preliminary plat shall be numbered and the total number of sheets noted. 2. Identifying Information a. Subdivision/Development name b. Legal description c. North arrow d. Scale used on the plat e. Names of owner(s) of record and sub-divider(s) f. Date preliminary plat was drawn 3. Survey Information a. Exterior boundaries of the property to be subdivided b. Approximate location of all section or legal subdivision corners pertinent to the subdivision. c. Approximate dimensions and area of each lot. Lots and blocks shall be designated by number and area, as applicable. d. All streets, alleys, avenues, roads, and highways including proposed street names. e. The area, locations, boundaries, and dimensions of all parks, common areas, and other areas dedicated for public use. f. Total gross area of the subdivision and total net area of lots g. Ground elevations of the subject property, including elevations and benchmarks. Contour intervals shall be vertical intervals of two feet where the average slope of the subdivision is less than 10% and at intervals of five feet where the average slope of the subdivision is 10% or greater. h. Approximate location and identification of all existing and proposed private and public easements and rights-of-way, including descriptions of their widths and purposes. i. Existing and/or proposed irrigation ditch easements j. Proposed locations of all intersections, driveway approaches and other access points in relation to existing and proposed roads. k. Identified hazard areas shall be prominently shown on the subdivision plat and in other records of conveyance. l. Any proposed “No-Build-No Disturbance” areas. m. The area of the subdivision within the FEMA-designated floodway and/or flood fringe, if applicable. C. Project Summary fully describing existing site conditions and project proposal. 25 D. Primary Review Criteria Questionnaire (Environmental and Community Assessment) pursuant to MCA 76-3-603 & 608(3) and a report describing the probable impacts resulting from the proposed subdivision and proposed mitigation for each criteria listed below [First minor subdivisions must provide a Summary of Probable Impacts, which can be incorporated into the Project Summary, for each of the criteria]: 1. Agriculture: Demonstrate that the subdivision proposal will have no adverse impacts on agriculture; or identify the adverse impacts and describe proposed avoidance and mitigation efforts that will be used to mitigate the adverse impacts. 2. Agricultural Water User Facilities: In areas where agricultural water user facilities exist on the subject property or adjoin the property, identify the agricultural water user, describe any proposed changes to the agricultural water use and describe alterations to the availability of water. 3. Local Services: Identify the services and evaluate the impacts on those services including transportation elements, utilities, water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, schools, emergency services, and information pertaining to residential units and taxation. 4. Natural Environment: Identify the resources and evaluate the impacts on those resources including adjacent public lands, cultural resources, hydrological characteristics, soil characteristics and vegetative cover types. 5. Wildlife: Identify species of fish and wildlife which use the area to be affected by the proposed subdivision and describe measures to minimize or mitigate conflicts between residents and wildlife. 6. Wildlife Habitat: Habitat consists of an animal’s home or range that includes food, water, shelter (or cover), and space in order for them to survive. Identify any known critical or key wildlife areas and travel corridors. Describe any proposed measures to protect or enhance wildlife habitat or to minimize degradation of habitat. 7. Public Health and Safety: Demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will not have adverse impact on conditions that relate to the public health and safety including emergency services; environmental health; flooding, rock falls or landslides, unstable soils, steep slopes, wildfire and other natural hazards, high voltage lines or high pressure gas lines; on-site or nearby off-site land uses that create a nuisance (e.g. noise, dust, smoke, unpleasant odors), and air or vehicular traffic safety hazards. E. Supplemental Maps (some of which may be combined or the information can be included on the preliminary plat) 1. A vicinity map showing the subject property and the area within 1000 feet of it. 2. A map showing the relationship of the proposed subdivision to adjacent property and roads to include: a. the names of platted subdivisions and certificates of survey numbers; b. ownership of adjacent lands, including those across public/private rights-of-way 3. An aerial photograph showing the location of the proposed subdivision and areas located within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. 4. Survey history of the subject property 5. A USGS topographic map with the subject property clearly indicated. 6. An Existing Conditions Map as required in Section III-A and updated to reflect any new information such as fire chimneys and other hazards, slopes over 30% or floodplain. 7. Other maps as a result of addressing the Primary Review Criteria 26 F. Phasing Plan (as applicable) with each phase numbered in the order they are proposed to be filed indicating the following: 1. Date each phase will be submitted for final plat review 2. Improvements to be completed with each phase 3. Amount of parkland dedication required for each phase and amount provided. G. Street and Road Plans 1. Typical cross-sections for each type of road proposed or road improvement; 2. Road profiles and cross-sections for all proposed streets and roads which have grades exceeding seven (7) percent or cuts and fills exceeding three (3) feet: 3. Grades, surface and base thickness, and width; 4. Drainage facilities 5. Street names; 6. Minimum site distances and curb radii at corners; 7. Locations and characteristics of bridges and culverts; and 8. For cul-de-sac streets, provide the widths of turn-around radii, minimum right-of-way widths at turnarounds, minimum surface widths at turnarounds, and total length. H. Utility Plan showing existing and proposed infrastructure on and within five hundred (500) feet of the property including: 1. Approximate location, size and depth of nearest sewer and water mains; 2. Approximate location and size of wells and fire hydrants; 3. Approximate location of nearest electric and telephone services I. Water and Sanitation The State of Montana [MCA 76-3-622] requires subdividers to provide the following water and sanitation information for any new subdivision that will include a new water supply system or new wastewater facilities. In compliance with this law, attach a separate document entitled “Water & Sanitation Report” which contains the following: 1. A vicinity map or plan that shows: a. The location, within 100 feet outside of the exterior property line of the subdivision and on the proposed lots, of flood plains; surface water features; springs; irrigation ditches; b. Existing, previously approved and proposed water wells and wastewater treatment systems including mixing zones for the subdivision; c. The representative drain-field site used for the soil profile description; and d. The location, within 500 feet outside of the exterior property line of the subdivision, of public water and sewer facilities 2. A description of the proposed subdivision's water supply systems, storm water systems, solid waste disposal systems, and wastewater treatment systems, including whether the water supply and wastewater treatment systems are individual, shared, multiple user, or public as those systems are defined in rules published by the Department of Environmental Quality; 3. A drawing of the conceptual lot layout at a scale no smaller than 1 inch equal to 200 feet that shows all information required for a lot layout document in rules adopted by the Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to 76-4-104, MCA; 27 4. Evidence of suitability for new on-site wastewater treatment systems that, at a minimum, include: a. A soil profile description from a representative drain-field site identified on the vicinity map that complies with standards published by the department of environmental quality; b. Demonstration that the soil profile contains a minimum of four (4) feet of vertical separation distance between the bottom of the permeable surface of the proposed wastewater treatment system and a limiting layer; and c. In cases in which the soil profile or other information indicates that ground water is within seven (7) feet of the natural ground surface, evidence that the ground water will not exceed the minimum vertical separation distance of four (4) feet. 5. For new water supply systems, unless cisterns are proposed, evidence of adequate water availability: a. obtained from well logs or testing of onsite or nearby wells; b. obtained from information contained in published hydro-geological reports; or c. as otherwise specified by rules adopted by the department of environmental quality pursuant to 76-4-104, MCA; 6. Evidence of sufficient water quality in accordance with rules adopted by the Department of Environmental Quality pursuant to 76-4-104, MCA. 7. Preliminary analysis of potential impacts to ground water quality from new wastewater treatment systems, using as guidance rules adopted by the board of environmental review pursuant to 75-5-301, MCA and 75-5-303, MCA related to standard mixing zones for ground water, source specific mixing zones, and non-significant changes in water quality. The preliminary analysis may be based on currently available information and must consider the effects of overlapping mixing zones from proposed and existing wastewater treatment systems within and directly adjacent to the subdivision. Instead of performing the preliminary analysis, the sub-divider may perform a complete non-degradation analysis in the same manner as is required for an application that is reviewed under Title 76, Chapter 4. J. Slope Map for showing slopes greater than 30% K. Additional Material (as applicable): 1. In areas where there is potential for landslides, slope instability or high ground water, provide a report by a qualified soil or geotechnical engineer indicating the locations, character and extent of all areas subject to said hazards. 2. When evidence of high groundwater or unstable soil is present provide a groundwater drainage mitigation plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer (PE) to mitigate the problem. 3. Floodplain Analysis 4. Noxious Weed Assessment/Inventory 5. Fire Risk Assessment 28 6. Traffic Impact Analysis, if the proposed project generates 400 or more ADT on any one road based on a trip distribution analysis. 7. If access to the subdivision is across private property not owned by the subdivider, provide evidence of legal access or describe how it will be obtained prior to filing the final plat. 8. Existing covenants 9. Variance requests. L. Covenants 1. Common property is to be deeded to a property owners’ association. The covenants and by-laws which govern the association must, at a minimum, provide for the: a. Transition of control of the association from the Declarant to the homeowners. b. Formation of a property owners’ association and filing of Articles of Incorporation with the Secretary of State’s office; c. Mandatory membership for each property owner. Purchasers of property may also be required to sign a waiver of right to protest the formation of a maintenance district to maintain improvements; d. Perpetual reservation of the common property when required under 76-3-621(6)(a), MCA; e. Payment of liability insurance premiums, local taxes, and the cost of maintaining recreational or other facilities; f. Placement of liens on the property of lot owners who are delinquent in the payment of association fees and assessments; g. Adjustment of assessments to meet changing needs; h. Means of enforcing the covenants, and of receiving and processing complaints; i. Dissolution of the association and modification of the covenants and restrictions after obtaining the governing body’s approval of the change; and j. Regular maintenance of roads, parks, buildings, drainage facilities, and other facilities controlled by the association. 2. The governing body may require that some or all protective covenants governing the use of land within the subdivision, whether proposed by the subdivider or required by the governing body, be set forth in a separate heading identifying them as plat approval covenants, and indicating: “These covenant(s) may not be repealed or amended without prior written consent of the Lincoln County Commissioners.” Such provisions may include: a. Noxious Weed Plan 29 b. WUI Guidelines c. Visibility of Address Signs from Street d. Riparian Buffer M. Road Maintenance Agreement A preliminary road maintenance agreement (RMA) is required for all private roads and common accesses providing legal access to lots within the subdivision and must address the following provisions: 1. Description of the parcels that are subject to the agreement; 2. Sections of the road(s) or access locations subject to the RMA; 3. The RMA is binding to any person having an interest in a parcel subject to the RMA; 4. Any person providing public utilities may use the utility easements for such purposes; 5. Decisions to undertake any road maintenance is the responsibility of the landowners and shall be based on a majority vote (over 50%, or in accordance with the HOA provisions) of the parties to the agreement; 6. Parties eligible to cast a vote (one vote per parcel); 7. How the costs of maintenance will be assessed (equally or disproportionately) to the parties in the RMA; 8. The amount to be assessed in the event that a party subdivides a parcel that is subject to the RMA; 9. In the event that an assessment becomes delinquent, the assessment and interest and the cost of collection shall become a continuing lien on the lot; 10. The RMA is perpetual and cannot be rescinded unless the county or state agrees to maintain the roadway described in the agreement; 11. Maintenance of dust control, snow removal, maintenance of storm water drainage facilities, ordinary maintenance and reconstruction if necessary. The RMA shall also include on-street parking enforcement provisions, in accordance with on-street parking provided for in the road design, because failure to enforce on-street parking may result in the inability of emergency services providers to provide service to lots along this road(s); 12. The agreement may be amended, except that it may not be amended to be less strict or less inclusive; and 13. Notary statement. The RMA shall be filed (prior to or concurrent with the filing of the final plat) with the Clerk & Recorder's Office as a single document and shall not include other provisions not related to road maintenance. The subdivider may choose to include the RMA in the covenants provided there is a statement that the road maintenance section cannot be amended to be less strict or less inclusive. 30 V. FINAL PLAT PROCESS AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS All final plats must be prepared by a professional land surveyor licensed to practice in the State of Montana; must conform to the preliminary plat as previously reviewed and approved by the governing body; must incorporate all required modifications; and must comply with all conditions of preliminary plat approval. Final plats of subdivisions approved for phased development shall be filed sequentially in accordance with the approval. V-A. Final Plat Review 1. Final Plan Check Prior to submitting a final plat and accompanying documentation, the subdivider shall submit a draft final plat for review. The final plan check submittal shall include: a. Two (2) copies of the final plat b. Surveyor closure sheets c. Final Plan Check fee 2. Review by Administrator a. The Administrator shall send a copy of the final plat, along with the closure sheets, to the Examining Land Surveyor (ELS). b. The Administrator shall review a copy of the final plat for compliance with preliminary plat approval. c. Upon receipt of the ELS-reviewed plat, both copies will be sent to the surveyor of record for corrections prior to final plat submittal. 3. Final Plat Submittal The final plat and all supplementary documents must be submitted to the Administrator prior to the expiration of preliminary plat approval. The submittal shall include, as applicable: a. the final plat application; b. the final plat review fee; c. a statement from the project surveyor or engineer outlining how each condition of approval has been satisfied; d. a Title Report or updated Abstract dated no less than 30 days prior to the date of submittal; e. the DEQ or local Environmental Health Department approval; f. all final state or local encroachment permits, g. certification by the designing (or observing) PE that all road and utility improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. h. all record engineering plans; i. covenants and associated attachments; 31 j. Road Maintenance Agreement k. Final Plat(s) with appropriate signatures and notarization seals including two 18” x 24” copy of the final plat. l. In addition to showing the location of utility easements on the plat with dashed lines, the following statement must appear on the final plat: “The undersigned hereby grants unto all public utility companies as such are defined and established by Montana Law, an easement for the purpose of construction, maintenance, repair and removal of their lines; under the areas designated on this plat as “utility easement”. 4. Review by Administrator i. The Administrator shall review the final plat submittal to ascertain that all conditions and requirements for final plat approval have been met. The Administrator will not accept, begin processing, nor schedule any actions on a final plat submittal until a complete application and fee, and copies of the final plat have been received. Final plat applications will not be considered complete until all conditions of preliminary approval have been satisfied. ii. The final plat shall incorporate all modifications required as a result of the preliminary plat review. The governing body, however, may approve a final plat which has been modified to reflect improvements in design or changes which have occurred in the natural surroundings and environment since the time of the preliminary plat review and approval. iii. If the Administrator determines that the final plat differs materially from the approved or conditionally approved preliminary plat pursuant to Section III-A-4.c. Amended Applications, the applicant may be required to submit an amended application pursuant to said provisions iv. A determination of the Director may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners. 32 V-B. Subdivision Improvements Agreement; Guaranty As a condition of approval of the final plat, the subdivider must have installed all required improvements or have entered into a subdivision improvements agreement (SIA) guaranteeing the construction, installation, and maintenance of all required improvements [76-3-507, MCA]. If the subdivider chooses to enter into a subdivision improvements agreement, guaranteeing the public improvements through a bond or letter of credit, real property or other acceptable form of collateral, an opinion of probable costs for the installation of the public improvements shall be prepared by a PE. The amount of the guarantee shall be calculated by multiplying 125% of the estimate. The governing body may require that a certain percentage of improvements be completed prior to entering into an SIA. V-C. Final Plat Approval 1. Review of Final Plat. a. The governing body shall examine each final subdivision plat and shall approve the plat only if: i. it conforms to the conditions of approval set forth on the preliminary plat and to the terms of this chapter and regulations adopted pursuant to this chapter; and ii. the county treasurer has certified that all real property taxes and special assessments assessed and levied on the land to be subdivided have been paid. b. Final subdivision plats and certificates of survey shall be reviewed for errors and omissions in calculation or drafting and signed by the County ELS prior to recording with the County Clerk and Recorder pursuant to MCA 76-3-611(2)(a). V-D. Final Plat Filing After it is approved, the final plat shall not be altered in any manner except as provided in II-B-8. The county clerk and recorder shall not accept any plat for filing that does not bear the governing body’s approval in proper form or that has been altered. The clerk and recorder shall file an approved plat only if it is accompanied by the documents specified in the Uniform Standards for Monumentation of the Administrative Rules of Montana. V-E. Amending Filed Plats 1. Changes that materially alter any portion of a filed plat, its land divisions or improvements, or that will modify the approved use of land within the subdivision, must be made by filing an amended plat showing all alterations and must be reviewed and approved by the governing body. Any alteration which changes the approved use or increases the number of lots or modifies six or more lots, or abandons or alters a public road right-of-way or parkland dedication is subject to a review as a major subdivision per these regulations and the MCA. 33 2. The governing body may not approve an amended final plat without the written consent of the owners and lien holders of all lots which will be modified by the proposed amendment. 3. The governing body may not approve an amendment that will place a lot in non-conformance with the standards contained in either: a. Section VI of these regulations unless the governing body holds a public hearing on the amendment and issues a written variance from the standards pursuant to Section VI-V, Variances. b. Local zoning regulations unless the governing body follows the steps required by the regulations necessary to grant a variance, conditional use permit or amendment to the zoning regulations. 4. The final amended plat submitted for approval must comply with the requirements for final subdivision plats under the Uniform Standards for Filing Final Plats of the ARMs. 34 VI. DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS These standards apply to subdivisions outside of incorporated areas that are not proposed for annexation. Incorporated areas and areas planned for annexation may have their own standards and/or more strict standards which must be complied with prior to subdivision approval. All subdivisions approved by the governing body must comply with the provisions of this section, except where granted a variance pursuant to Section VI-V, Variances. The governing body may not grant variances from the provisions of Section VI-D, Floodplain Provisions. For subdivisions created by rent or lease, planned unit developments, and condominiums, refer to sections VI-R, VI-S, VI-T and VI-U of these regulations. VI-A. Conformance with Regulations The design and development of a subdivision must conform to any applicable zoning or other regulations. VI-B. Natural Environment The design and development of subdivisions must provide satisfactory building sites, which are properly related to topography, and should, to the extent possible, preserve the natural terrain, natural drainage, existing topsoil, and existing vegetation compatible with fire prevention measures. VI-C. Lands Unsuitable for Subdivision The following lands are unsuitable for subdivision: 1. Land located in the floodway of a 100-year flood event as defined by Title 76, Chapter 5, MCA, or other land determined by the governing body to be subject to flooding may not be subdivided for building or residential purposes or other uses that may increase or aggravate flood hazards to life, health or welfare, or that may be prohibited by state or local floodplain or floodway regulations. 2. Land for which no building sites can be identified on slopes less than 30% or for which no building site can be identified outside of fire chimneys and more than 150 feet from the apex of fire chimneys. 3. Land that the governing body determines is unsuitable for subdivision because of natural or human caused hazards may not be subdivided for building or residential purposes unless the hazards are eliminated or will be overcome by approved design and construction techniques. VI-D. Floodplain Provisions Land identified within the 100-year floodplain shall be subject to Lincoln County Floodplain Regulations as administered by the Lincoln County Floodplain Administrator. If any portion of a proposed subdivision is within 1,000 horizontal feet and 20 vertical feet of a live stream draining an area of 25 square miles or more, and no official floodway delineation or floodway studies of the stream have been made, the subdivider shall provide a floodplain 35 analysis establishing the base flood elevations for the stream. The analysis must be performed by a PE and reviewed and approved by the Floodplain Administrator in consultation with the Montana Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) Regional Engineer. VI-E. Lots Each lot must contain a building site that conforms to health department regulations, applicable zoning regulations and the following: 1. No lot may be divided by a municipal or county boundary line. 2. No lot may be divided by a public road, alley, right-of-way or easement. 3. Each lot shall abut and have access to a public or private street or road. 4. Corner lots shall have driveway access off the lower classification road. 5. Corner lots must be designed to provide minimum sight distances for safe vehicular movement, based on AASHTO standards for the posted road speed. 6. No lot of less than five acres may have an average depth greater than three times its average width. 7. Side lot lines must be at substantially right angles to street or road lines and radial to curved street or road lines. 8. Through lots are prohibited except when they are essential to provide separation of residential development from traffic arterials or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography or orientation. 9. All lots must be designed such that homes may be located on the lot in accordance with Firewise standards (see the National Fire Protection Association [NFPA] publication 1144). VI-F. Blocks 1. Blocks must be designed to assure traffic safety and ease of traffic control and circulation, to accommodate the special needs of the use contemplated, and to take advantage of the limitations and opportunities of the topography. 2. Block length shall not be greater than 600 ft in urban/suburban subdivisions; or they shall match adjacent block lengths, whichever is less. 36 VI-G. Streets and Roads NOTE: In order to meet the standards set forth in this section, upgrades to existing roads serving proposed subdivisions may be necessary. VI-G-1. Design All roads in major subdivisions (or roads in excess of 1000 feet and 7% grade serving 2-5 lots) must be designed by a PE to be in compliance with standards established in Table 1. Certification by a PE that roads have been designed and constructed as such shall be required prior to final plat approval. As a general guide to geometric design, applicants shall use A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition (or later), also known as the “Green Book”, by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). a. The arrangement, type, extent, width, grade, and location of all streets must be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, topographical conditions, public convenience and safety, and the proposed uses of the land to be served by them. c. All streets must either be dedicated to the public or be private streets to be owned and maintained by an approved property owners’ association or entity approved by the governing body. d. Residential driveways must access from the lowest classification road. Any vehicular access onto a state highway must be approved by the Montana Department of Transportation. e. When an existing half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the street must be platted within the new subdivision. f. Intersections. The following requirements apply to intersections: i. Streets must intersect at 90 degree angles except when topography prohibits this alignment. In no case may the angle of an intersection be less than 60 degrees to the center line of the roadway being intersected. ii. A minimum distance of 125 horizontal feet from centerlines is required between road approaches and intersections, and 50 feet between driveway approaches. iii. No more than two streets may intersect at one point (unless roundabouts meeting AASHTO standards are incorporated into the design). iv. the grade of approaches to major highways shall be in accordance with MDT standards. g. Names of new streets or roads aligned with existing streets must be the same as those of the existing streets. Proposed street names may not duplicate or cause confusion with existing street names nor be named after an individual, unless approved by the governing body. 37 h. Safe and adequate pedestrian access, at least 10 feet wide, shall be provided where essential to provide circulation to schools, playgrounds, shopping, transportation, and other community facilities. i. Proposed road engineering, plans, profiles, and calculations as required may be subject to review by an independent consultant, as may be required by the governing body or Administrator. j. All subdivisions shall be designed to ensure that fire apparatus have access to within 150 feet of all portions of the proposed residential building sites. VI-G-2. Improvements Applicable road sections shall be designed according to the procedures outlined in AASHTO’s 1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures and 1998 Supplement (or later version), and in conformance with the technical specifications of the Montana Public Works Standard Specifications. Documentation that the material conforms to these specifications is required prior to final plat approval. NOTE: Roads serving 2-5 lots shall be constructed with a minimum of 8” compacted pit run. a. Lincoln County was mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 to initiate measures to reduce air pollution particulate amounts in the Libby area (a map of the Air Quality District may be obtained from the Environmental Health Department). In response to this mandate and to achieve reduced levels of road dust contributing to this problem, road designs submitted for roads servicing subdivisions resulting in more than five (5) lots with densities exceeding one (1) dwelling unit per acre, or are being designed to serve commercial or public lots, are required to have surfacing and maintenance program that would eliminate or substantially reduce the potential for dust pollution. b. Street lights may be required for the protection of public health and safety. All street lighting shall be designed with downward directional lighting to minimize light pollution. c. Street or road signs and traffic control devices must be placed at all intersections and be of non-combustible, reflective material. Traffic control devices must conform to the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Control Devices available at: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/. d. The developer may be required to provide an off-street area for cluster mailboxes based on recommendations from the local Post Office. e. All culverts in new roads must be constructed of non-combustible materials. VI-G-3. Maintenance All roads must be maintained by a public or private entity. If maintenance is to be by a private entity, a Forest Road Users Agreement (if Forest Service road) or a Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) that ensures adequate and continued maintenance (dust abatement, snow removal, grading, etc.) must be filed with the final plat. 38 TABLE 1. Lincoln County Road Design Standards * DESIGN ELEMENT STANDARD Minimum right-of-way width** 60 ft. Minimum driving surface** (a/b/) 24 ft Shoulders 1 ft min.; 2 ft for travel speed greater than 35 mph. Maximum grades*** 9%, 4% at switchback landings (point of curvature to tangent). Intersections (c/) Curvature/ no super-elevation (c/) Horizontal Alignment (c/) Vertical Alignment (c/) Cul-de-sacs (d/) Maximum road length Minimum outside right-of-way radius Minimum outside roadway radius 1000 ft. up to 2500 ft. if emergency access provided and with Governing Body approval. 54 ft. 48 ft. Hammerheads See Appendix I for approved alternatives New bridges Driving widths Design load Vertical clearance 24 ft. H-20 (per AASHTO) 13.5 ft. Center radius (switchback) 50 ft from centerline Driveways Serve no more than two (2) dwelling units Maximum grade Per Road Standards Minimum width 14’ Surface 8” compacted pit run Turnouts One (1) approximately every 400 ft measuring 14 ft (w) x 50 ft (l) Turnaround Required for driveways in excess of 150 ft in length – Hammerhead or Cul-de-Sac, per design standards above, must be within 150 ft of dwelling Emergency Access Same as Driveways * Incorporated areas within the county may have their own street and road standards which must be met for subdivision approval. ** Exceptions to 60’ easement/ROW and 24’ driving surface: Roads shall be permitted to have 40’ easement/ROW if the road serves 8 lots or less, or less than 100 ADT and there is no possibility of future road extension due to a physical or political boundary such as: i. Canyon, ravine or vertical rock wall; ii. Water body (lake stream, wetlands) iii. Federal or state lands adjacent NOTE: In the event of a pre-existing 40’ easement, if the subdivider demonstrates through a trip distribution analysis that additional traffic created by the proposed subdivision does not 39 warrant increased easement width to accommodate it (based on AASHTO Guidelines), a 40’ easement may be allowed, provided additional surface width, drainage and other facilities can be adequately designed within it. *** May be allowed up to 12% in consultation with the fire jurisdiction with approval by the Governing Body; a/ Each driving lane shall be 12 feet wide. Where guardrail installation is required, per AASHTO Guidelines, add 4 feet of shoulder to the driving surface of the outside lane. If parking will be permitted add 8 feet per side. b/ All driving lanes are required to maintain a 13.5 vertical feet overhead clearance. c/ Based on the design speed of the road (refer to AASHTO Guidelines). d/ Developments with more than 30 dwelling units shall provide at least one separate emergency access or egress road. VI-H. Grading and Drainage 1. Swales, storm sewers or some accepted method of storm water management shall be required, taking into account the character of the area, density of development, and adjoining properties. Unless onsite mitigation options are available, the subdivider shall extend the storm drain if the subdivision is located within five hundred (500) feet of an existing storm drain facility that has easements or public right-of-way and authorization from the operator to connect to the facility. 2. All drainage systems shall meet the minimum standards of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, as required by M.C.A. Title 76, Chapter 4, Part 1, Circular DEQ 8 and all applicable state and local regulations. 3. Storm drainage facilities shall be installed prior to or concurrent with other improvements and be designed to divert surface water away from cut faces or sloping surfaces of a fill. All storm drainage facilities shall be protected from erosion or silt deposition during construction of both public and private improvements. 4. Drainage easements shall be drawn on the plat. 5. Storm drainage facilities and any associated easements may not be encroached upon or disrupted, and shall remain free of obstructions (fences, structures, etc). 6. Natural drainage ways shall be preserved and accommodated at necessary crossings to access subdivision lots. Lots shall be arranged to preserve and maintain these drainage channels. 7. Graded slopes shall be planted with a vegetative ground cover, and, if applicable, consistent with the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) requirements. 8. Landowners shall replant areas of disturbance no later than the first growing season to prevent erosion and weed invasion, in consultation with the Lincoln County Weed Department. Where site grading is necessary, top soil shall be salvaged or imported to redistribute on areas to be re-vegetated. 40 9. Use of retention facilities within rights-of-way shall be minimized unless it significantly reduces grading or eliminates long cuts or fills. 10. A method of maintenance and designation of responsible parties must be provided for storm drainage facilities. VI-I. Water Supply Systems 1. For subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing less than 20 acres, the proposed method of supplying domestic water to each lot in the subdivision must comply with the design standards adopted by the Montana DEQ and contained in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.36.301, 17.36.302, 17.36.303, and 17.36.305. By this reference these DEQ standards are incorporated into and made a part of these regulations. Unless defined elsewhere in these regulations, the terms used in these standards will have the meanings assigned to them in ARM 17.36.101. 2. The governing body may not approve the final plat of a subdivision containing lots of less than 20 acres in size, unless the subdivision has been approved by DEQ or other authorized reviewing authority under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, sections 76-4- 101 et seq., MCA, or is exempt from same. VI-J. Sewage Treatment Systems 3. For subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing less than 20 acres, the proposed method of disposing of sewage from each lot in the subdivision must comply with the design standards adopted by the DEQ and contained in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.36.301, 17.36.302, 17.36.312, and 17.36.320 through 17.36.326. By this reference these DEQ standards are incorporated into and made a part of these regulations. Unless defined elsewhere in these regulations, the terms used in these standards will have the meanings assigned to them in ARM 17.36.101. 4. For subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing less than 20 acres, the subdivision must have been approved by DEQ or other authorized reviewing authority under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, sections 76-4-101 et seq., MCA before the governing body can approve the final plat. 5. For subdivisions containing parcels containing 20 acres or more, the subdivider may have to demonstrate that there is an adequate water source and at least one area for a septic system and a replacement drain field for each lot before the governing body may approve the final plat. VI-K. Solid Waste 1. For subdivisions that will create one or more parcels containing less than 20 acres, the proposed method of solid waste disposal must comply with the standards adopted by the DEQ and contained in the Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.36.309. By this reference this DEQ standard is incorporated into and made a part of these regulations. Unless defined elsewhere in these regulations, the terms used in these standards will have the meanings assigned to them in ARM 17.36.101. 41 2. Before the governing body will approve the final plat of a subdivision containing lots of less than 20 acres in size, the subdivision must have been approved by the DEQ or other authorized reviewing authority under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act sections 76-4-101, et seq., MCA. 3. For subdivisions that will create one or more parcels between 20 and 160 acres, the proposed method of storing and disposing of solid waste generated within the subdivision in the subdivision must comply with the local environmental health department regulations. VI-L. Utilities 1. Basic utilities such as electrical power and telephone service must abut and be available to each lot in the subdivision. 2. If utilities are not installed adjacent to the lots prior to the filing of the final plat, the subdivider shall either enter into a subdivision improvements agreement guaranteeing the installation of those utilities or the subdivider shall provide the governing body with signed contracts from all pertinent utility companies guaranteeing that the utilities will be installed when residential dwelling units are constructed on the subject lots. The subdivider shall bear the cost of installing the trunk line utilities. Purchasers of individual lots shall be responsible for the installation of the utilities from the trunk line to a service destination. 3. All new utilities shall be installed underground, unless otherwise required by the specific utility, and in accordance with local utility provider requirements. 4. All subdivisions shall show utility easements and they shall be 15 feet wide unless otherwise specified by a utility company or governing body. 5. Certain subdivisions may be exempt from utility installation if they are created: a) for the express purpose of providing a recreational experience for a group or individuals that would prefer not to rely on traditional electric or telephone service to enhance their lifestyle; or b) in an area wherein the cost of extending or providing utilities would out-weigh the costs of providing alternative energy and communication devices. Such alternative solutions may include hydroelectric, solar, or generator power instead of traditional “grid” electricity; and Citizens Band Radio, Cell Phone, and/or Satellite phone instead of traditional land line phone service. In these situations the final plat and covenants shall contain the following statements: “Purchasers of these lots are hereby notified that certain utility services are not provided to [name of] subdivision. Furthermore, emergency service providers such as, but not limited to, fire and police departments, ambulance and medical services, snow plowing services, etc., may find it difficult to respond to incidents in or near the subdivision, and thereby are not obligated to provide their services, though they may choose to do so. However, response times may be delayed due to factors beyond their control such as, but not limited to distance, weather conditions, road conditions, 42 etc. Purchasers are made aware that certain other risks, not expressly disclosed herein, are associated with choosing to live and or recreate in and near this subdivision. Therefore, purchasers of these subdivision lots, do hereby and forever release the Developer, subdivider, surveyors, engineers, Lincoln County, and all other agencies and entities involved in the creation of this subdivision, and indemnify them against any possible loss, damage, claims, or liability whatsoever.” VI-M. Water Course and Irrigation Easements 1. Except as noted in subsection (b), below, the subdivider shall establish within the subdivision ditch easements that: a. are in locations of appropriate topographic characteristics and sufficient width to allow the physical placement and unobstructed maintenance of open ditches or below ground pipelines for the delivery of water for irrigation to persons and land legally entitled to the water under an appropriated water right or permit of an irrigation district or other private or public entity formed to provide for the use of the water right on the subdivision lots; b. are a sufficient distance from the centerline of the ditch to allow for construction, repair, maintenance, and inspection of the ditch; and c. prohibit the placement of structures or the planting of vegetation other than grass within the ditch easement without the written permission of the ditch owner. 2. The subdivider need not establish irrigation easements as provided above if: a. the average lot size in the proposed subdivision will be one acre or less and the subdivider provides for disclosure, in a manner acceptable to the governing body, notifying potential buyers that lots within the subdivision are classified as irrigated land and may continue to be assessed for irrigation water delivery even though the water may not be deliverable to the lots; or b. the water rights have been removed from the land within the subdivision or the process has been initiated to remove the water rights from the subdivided land; and c. the fact the water rights have been or will be removed from the land within the subdivision is denoted on the preliminary plat. If the removal of water rights has not been completed at the time the final plat is filed, the subdivider shall provide written notification to prospective buyers of the subdivider’s intention to remove the water right and shall document that intent, when applicable, in agreements and legal documents for related sales transactions. 3. The subdivider shall, unless otherwise provided under separate written agreement or filed easement, show on the preliminary and final plat, and file and record with the county clerk and recorder, ditch easements for the unobstructed use and maintenance of existing water delivery ditches, pipelines, and facilities in the proposed subdivision that are necessary to convey water through the subdivision to lands adjacent to or beyond 43 the subdivision boundaries in quantities and in a manner that are consistent with historic and legal rights. A minimum width of 10 feet is required on each side of irrigation canals and ditches for maintenance purposes. VI-N. Disposition of Water Rights 1. If a subdivision will create lots averaging less than five acres in size, the subdivider shall submit evidence with the final plat that the subdivider has: a. reserved all or a portion of the appropriation water rights owned by the owner of the land to be subdivided and transfer these water rights to a single entity for use by landowners within the subdivision who have a legal right to the water and reserved and severed any remaining surface water rights from the land; b. if the land to be subdivided is subject to a contract or interest in a public or private entity formed to provide for the use of a water right on the subdivision lots, established a landowner’s water use agreement administered through a single entity. This agreement must specify how the water rights will be administered and describe the rights and responsibilities of landowners within the subdivision who have a legal right and access to the water; or c. reserved and severed all surface water rights from the land proposed for subdivision. VI-O. Park Land Dedication 1. Except as provided below, a subdivider of a wholly residential subdivision creating more than five lots shall dedicate to the governing body a cash or land donation equal to: a. 11 % of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels of one-half acre or smaller; b. 7.5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than one-half acre and not larger than 1 acre; c. 5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than 1 acre and not larger than 3 acres; and d. 2.5% of the area of the land proposed to be subdivided into parcels larger than 3 acres and not larger than 5 acres. 2. The governing body may establish park dedication requirements based on the community need for parks and the development densities identified in the growth policy or zoning regulations. Park dedication requirements established under this subsection are in lieu of those provided in subsection (a) and may not exceed 0.03 acres per dwelling unit. 3. Park land must be: a. Owned by a property owners’ association; or b. Dedicated to public use, if acceptable to the governing body; or c. A combination of the above. 44 4. The governing body, in consultation with the subdivider and the planning board or park board that has jurisdiction, may determine suitable locations for parks and playgrounds and, giving due weight and consideration to the expressed preference of the subdivider, may determine whether the park dedication must be a land donation, cash donation, or a combination of both. When a combination of land donation and cash donation is required, the cash donation may not exceed the proportional amount not covered by the land donation. “Cash donation" is the fair market value of the unsubdivided, unimproved land. a. In accordance with the provisions outlined below, the governing body shall use the dedicated money or land for development, acquisition, or maintenance of parks to serve the subdivision. i. The governing body may use the dedicated money to acquire, develop, or maintain, within its jurisdiction, parks or recreational areas or for the purchase of public open space or conservation easements only if: A. the park, recreational area, open space, or conservation easement is within a reasonably close proximity to the proposed subdivision; and B. the governing body has formally adopted a park plan that establishes the needs and procedures for use of the money. b. The governing body may not use more than 50% of the dedicated money for park maintenance. 5. The governing body shall waive the park dedication requirement if: a. the preliminary plat provides for a planned unit development or other development with land permanently set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in the development; and the area of the land and any improvements set aside for park and recreational purposes equals or exceeds the area of the dedication required; b. the preliminary plat provides long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat; cultural, historical, or natural resources; agricultural interests; or aesthetic values; and the area of the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of providing long-term protection is reduced by an amount equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication required; c. the area of the land proposed to be subdivided, by virtue of a combination of the above provisions, is reduced by an amount equal to or exceeding the area of the dedication required; or d. the subdivider provides for land outside of the subdivision to be set aside for park and recreational uses sufficient to meet the needs of the persons who will ultimately reside in the subdivision; and the area of the land and any improvements set aside for park and recreational uses equals or exceeds the area of dedication required. 6. The governing body may waive the park dedication requirement if: a. the subdivider provides land outside the subdivision that affords long-term protection of critical wildlife habitat, cultural, historical, or natural resources, agricultural interests, or aesthetic values; and b. the area of the land to be subject to long-term protection, as provided in subsection (f)(i), equals or exceeds the area of the dedication required under subsection (a). 7. Subject to the approval of the governing body and acceptance by the school district trustees, a subdivider may dedicate a land donation to a school district, adequate to be 45 used for school facilities or buildings. Such dedication must meet the requirements above. VI-P. Fire Protection VI-P-1. Purpose a. In order to reduce threats to life safety, property and resources, these standards for new subdivisions in wildland urban interface areas are intended to: i. Improve access to and defensibility of developments, homes and other property in wildland/urban interface areas; ii. Minimize the potential spread of fire from wildland areas to structures and from structure fires to wildland areas iii. Permit efficient suppression of fires; iv. Insure that new subdivisions in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) provide water supply systems with suitable access for firefighting crews and apparatus, with the intent to increase the resources available to such crews and minimize the spread of a wildland or structure fire. v. Educate property owners, residents, and people that they have a responsibility for prevention of wildland fire on their own property pursuant to §76-13-115 (6), MCA and §76-13-212, MCA. b. Therefore, all subdivisions must be planned, designed, constructed, and maintained so as to minimize the risk of fire. Measures must include: i. The design of subdivisions in cooperation with the jurisdictional fire protection entity. ii. FireWise covenants (see http://www.firewise.org/resources/homeowner.htm ). iii. Adequate water supply or approved mitigation. VI-P-2. Fire Risk Assessment For unincorporated areas of Lincoln County an analysis of the wildfire hazards on the subdivision site, as influenced by existing vegetation and topography, must accompany the submission of any application for preliminary plat approval. (See Appendix F: Fire Risk Assessment [FRA]) VI-P-3. Vegetation Management Plan a. The subdivider shall provide a vegetation management plan, if required by the FRA, for all properties within the subdivision, including any proposed open space. b. The intent of a vegetation management plan is to provide a strategy for reducing fire potential. The plan should address managing vegetation to meet the following goals: i. Protect life and property. 46 ii. Reduce the potential for a fire on improved property from spreading into wildland fuels, and from a fire in wildland fuels from spreading into improved property or structures. This also applies to reducing the potential for a fire spreading to or from lands adjacent to the subdivision. iii. Provide safe working areas for emergency responders fighting fire. iv. Maintain important native plant communities, the ecological processes that influence them, and consistency with fish and wildlife habitat conservation goals. Consulting with biologists in the preparation and implementation of the vegetation management plan is strongly encouraged. c. The plan shall include: i. a map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased vegetation; ii. a map of the areas that are to be thinned or treated for vegetative fuels management; d. Roadside Fuel Reduction Recommendations shall include: i. All areas within five (5’) feet of each side of the driving surface on a public street or road shall be cleared of all vegetation. ii. For private streets or roads, the entire width of the private road easement shall be cleared of all dead and down woody debris. VI-P-4. Gates. a. If gates are proposed, the locations, dimensions and operations shall be reviewed by the FPA. b. All gates shall be located such that stopped emergency vehicles do not impede the public right-of-way. c. Fire department personnel shall have ready access to locking mechanisms on any gate that restricts access or the gate should be constructed to “break away.” VI-P-5. Miscellaneous a. Mapping Fire Protection Features The subdivider should provide a detailed site map, including all fire protection features (i.e., access roads, hydrants systems, water supply points, etc. installed in the development) to the FPA. b. Maintenance of Equipment and Features Maintenance of fire protection equipment shall be ensured by a mechanism acceptable to the Governing Body. 47 VI-P-6. Water Supply Requirements Due to the wide variety of situations and levels of fire protection the location of each development will present a unique set of challenges. Water supply solutions shall be developed cooperatively between the developer and the FPA. For major subdivisions, the subdivider has the following options: a. If the subdivision is in a fire district or service area, the subdivider shall ensure water availability (see requirements below) and delivery is provided such that the ISO rating of the fire district or service area is maintained or improved (see the Planning Department for a current list of ratings); i. Depending on size and impact of the proposed subdivision on the fire district or service area, the subdivider may mitigate impacts to local services with a payment-in-lieu, if approved by the FPA. b. If the subdivision is not in a fire district or service area and the fire district or service area does not want to annex the subdivision, the subdivider shall mitigate impacts to wildland fire protection with a payment-in-lieu to Lincoln County. For minor subdivisions, the subdivider shall mitigate impacts to wildland fire protection with a payment-in-lieu to the fire district or service area, or Lincoln County, where neither of the other exists, unless the same developer has created multiple minor subdivisions adjacent to one another, in which case the applicant is subject to Section a. above. All payment-in-lieu of water supply mitigation shall be held by the fire district, fire service area, or Lincoln County, for the specific purpose of wildland fire protection. Payment-in-lieu amounts shall be set by the County Commissioners in consultation with the fire district or service area; may vary from district to district; and may be subject to change. c. Water Source Requirements All water sources must be within approximately two (2) vehicular miles and shall have a minimum annual water level or flow sufficient to meet the minimum water supply requirements identified below. This water level or flow shall not be rendered unusable because of freezing or seasonal low water. Adequate water flow and rights for access to the water source shall be ensured in a form acceptable to the FPA. d. Water Supply Requirements Regardless of the delivery method or source water, for the purposes of the protection of residential structures the water system shall be capable of supplying a minimum of 1,000 gpm for a minimum of 30 minutes. The FPA may require warning alarms in the event of lower than required water supplies. e. Delivery Methods. Water supply may be satisfied (with approval of the FPA) by the use of one or a combination of: i. Pressurized Hydrants Systems. Pressurized hydrant systems shall have a minimum usable water volume as determined by these guidelines. The water level of the water source shall be maintained by rainfall, water pumped from a well, or by seasonal high water of a 48 stream or river. The number of hydrants, design construction, capacity, location, water level, maintenance and access shall be approved by the FPA. ii. Draft Sites/Dry Hydrants. Draft sites from natural water sources such as ponds and streams as approved by the FPA. A. Whether the water source is manmade or natural, dry hydrants shall be installed at all draft sites. The design, construction, locations, access and maintenance plans for these sites should be approved by the FPA. B. The draft site shall have emergency vehicle access from an access road constructed in accordance with the Lincoln County Subdivision Regulations. C. Access to fire department draft sites should be designed to ensure that access roads and driveways are not obstructed. Accessibility should be provided in such a manner that responders will be able to withdraw water without having to go through extraordinary measures such as knocking down fences, etc. iii. Manmade Storage Systems (Tanks/Cisterns). Manmade storage systems shall have a minimum usable water volume as determined by these guidelines. This water source should be equipped with an approved hydrant or hydrants. The level of the water source shall have a mechanism to be maintained at its capacity. This may be accomplished by rainfall, water pumped from a well, or by seasonal high water of a stream or river. The design construction, location, water level maintenance, access and access maintenance should be approved by the FPA f. Testing and Maintenance Water sources, draft sites, hydrants and other fire protection equipment may be subject to periodic tests as required by the FPA. i. All such equipment installed under the provisions of these guidelines shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and should be repaired or replaced where defective. Additions, repairs, alterations, and servicing of such fire protection equipment and resources should be in accordance with standards approved by the FPA. ii. Defensible space of not less than 30 feet should be provided around water tank structures, water supply pumps and pump houses. Portions of trees and other combustible vegetation within 30 feet of the facilities should be removed. iii. Water supply facilities in the WUI dependent on electrical power to meet water supply demands should provide standby power systems to ensure that an uninterrupted water supply is provided, unless primary power is underground. The standby power source should be capable of providing power for a minimum of two hours. Standby power is not suggested when the water supply facility serves no more than one single family dwelling. 49 g. Modifications i. Fire flow requirements may be modified downward by the FPA for isolated buildings or a group of buildings in rural areas or small communities where the development of full fire flow is impractical. ii. Fire flow may be modified upward by the FPA where conditions indicate an unusual susceptibility to group fires or conflagrations. An upward modification should not be more than twice that suggested for the building or buildings under consideration. iii. Water supply points may be developed at a single location or at a number of locations within the vicinity of the development. The location or locations should be determined in cooperation with the FPA in order to best support suppression activities by the FPA. VI-Q. Noxious Weeds Pursuant to Title 7, Chapter 22, Part 21 of the MCA, a weed control plan shall be developed and implemented for every new subdivision. A noxious weed plan, or other such agreement for weed treatment, shall be approved by the Lincoln County Weed Board, signed and notarized by the subdivider, recorded with the final plat and incorporated with the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the Homeowners Association. VI-R. Design Standards for Subdivisions Created For Rent or Lease Subdivisions created by rent or lease must comply with the provisions of Section VI. The governing body may require provision for: 1. storage facilities on the lot or in compounds located within a reasonable distance; 2. a central area for storage or parking of boats, trailers, or other recreational vehicles; 3. landscaping or fencing to serve as a buffer between the development and adjacent properties; 4. an off-street area for mail delivery; and 5. street lighting. VI-S. Design Standards for Mobile/Manufactured Home Parks VI-S-1. Mobile/Manufactured Home Spaces a. Mobile/manufactured home spaces must be arranged to permit the safe and practical placement and removal of mobile homes. b. All mobile/manufactured homes must be located at least 25 feet from any property boundary line abutting upon a public street or highway right-of-way and at least 15 feet from other boundary lines of the park. c. The mobile/manufactured home pad must be located at least 10 feet from the street that serves it. 50 d. The size of the mobile/manufactured home pad must be suitable for the general market to be served and must fit the dimensions of mobile/manufactured homes anticipated. e. A mobile/manufactured home pad may not occupy more than one-third (1/3) of the area of its space. The total area occupied by a mobile home and its roofed accessory buildings and structures may not exceed two-thirds (2/3) of the area of a space. f. The governing body may require that the mobile/manufactured home pad be improved to provide adequate support for the placement and tie-down of the mobile home. g. No mobile/manufactured home or its attached structures, such as awnings and carports, may be located within 20 feet of any other mobile home or its attached structures. h. No detached structure, such as a storage shed, may be located within five feet of any mobile/manufactured home or its attached structures. i. A minimum of two off-street parking spaces must be provided on or adjacent to each mobile/manufactured home space. The driveway must be located to allow for convenient access to the mobile/manufactured home, and be a minimum of 10 feet wide. j. One guest parking space must be provided for each 10 mobile/manufactured home spaces. Group parking may be provided. k. The limits of each mobile/manufactured home space must be clearly marked on the ground by permanent flush stakes, markers or other suitable means. Location of space limits on the ground must be approximately the same as those shown on the approved plans. Precise engineering of space limits is not required either on the plans or on the ground. l. Each mobile/manufactured home must be skirted within 30 days after it is moved to a space within the mobile/manufactured home park. The skirting must be of a fire-resistant material similar to that of the mobile/manufactured home exterior. VI-S-2. Mobile/Manufactured Home Streets Streets within a mobile/manufactured home park must meet the standards specified in Section VI-G, Streets and Roads. a. Streets must be designed to allow safe placement and removal of mobile homes. b. Roads within the mobile/manufactured home park must be designed to provide safe traffic circulation and parking. c. One-way road surface widths must be at least 16 feet wide; two-way roads must have at least 24 feet wide driving surface with 2 feet shoulders. 51 VI-T. Design Standards for Recreational Vehicle (RV) Parks VI-T-1. RV Lots/Spaces (a) Spaces in recreational vehicle parks must be arranged to allow for the safe movement of traffic and access to spaces. (b) Recreational vehicles must be separated from each other and from other structures by at least 15 feet, including slide-outs. Any accessory structures such as attached awnings must, for purposes of this separation requirement, be considered part of the recreational vehicle. (c) No recreational vehicle space may be located less than 20 feet from any public street or highway right-of-way. (d) A minimum of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall be provided each RV space/pad. (e) No On-Street Parking allowed other than emergency vehicles. (f) The size of RV Lot/Space shall not exceed what is allowable to accommodate for design and flow of water/wastewater of the DEQ Standards VI-T-2 RV Space/Pads The design shall be approved by a professional engineer to consist of a suitable base course material and a minimum surfacing of 3/4" top course, consisting of gravel, asphalt or concrete, which will allow for proper drainage and minimizing dust. VI-T-3. RV Density The density of a recreational vehicle park shall not exceed what is allowable by DEQ Standards VI-T-4. Setbacks There shall be a minimum ten (10) foot setback around the perimeter of the RV Park on all sides adjacent to property VI-T-5. Natural Visual Buffers Buffer strip: A minimum ten (10) foot buffer strip shall be provided along all streets or roadways adjoining the park which may include up to five (5) feet of unused right-of-way. A minimum three (3) foot buffer strip shall be provided along each interior property line(s); totaling six (6) feet. VI-T-6 Street Lighting Any light used to illuminate signs, parking areas, or driving surfaces shall be non-glaring, energy efficient and arranged so as to confine direct light beams to the lighted property or driving surface by appropriate directional hooding. VI-T-7 Numbering/Addressing RV Parks will be based on resolution 804 and include the following additions: a. All lot number shall be determined by the Lincoln County GIS Department b. All Lots shall be numbered and the numbers visible at the access point to each lot. c. Developers shall pay for the addressing of the RV Park and individual lots 52 VI-T-8 Landscaping Developers are encouraged to have a type of fencing and or vegetative landscaping design which provides for dust and erosion control. VI-T-9 Signage Signs and advertising shall be prohibited in recreation vehicle parks except: a. One (1) freestanding sign at the entrance of the park b. One (1) identifying lot sign at the entrance to a lot c. Directional and information signs for the convenience of the occupants of the park VI-T-10 Utilities Water/Wastewater: The water/wastewater design for a recreational vehicle park shall, at a minimum, comply with DEQ Standards. Refuse/Solid Waste Disposal – Refer to the Lincoln Subdivision Regulations Section VI-K. VI-T-11 Roads Roads, within a recreational Vehicle Park shall meet the following requirements below, in addition to the Standards found in VI-G Table 1:  Roads must be designed to allow safe placement and removal of Recreational Vehicles  Streets must be designed to provide safe access to public roads, safe traffic circulation and parking and to allow safe and practical placement and removal of RV’s One-way roads must have at least a 20-foot wide driving surface; two-way roads must have at least a 24-foot wide driving surface. VI-U. Design Standards for Condominium Developments Condominium developments must comply with applicable standards contained in Section VI, Design and Improvement Standards; AND must comply with all provisions of the Unit Ownership Act, Sections 70-23-102 through 70-23-703, MCA. VI-V. Variances VI-V-1. Variances Authorized The governing body may grant variances from Section VI, Design and Improvement Standards, of these regulations when, due to the characteristics of land proposed for subdivision, strict compliance with these standards would result in undue hardship and would not be essential to the public welfare. A variance will not be granted if it would have the effect of nullifying the intent and purpose of these regulations. The governing body will not approve a variance unless it finds that: a. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare or injurious to other adjoining properties; 53 b. Due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the property involved, strict compliance with the regulations will impose an undue hardship on the owner. Undue hardship does not include personal or financial hardship, or any hardship that is self imposed; c. The variance will not cause a substantial increase in public costs; and d. The variance will not place the subdivision in nonconformance with any adopted zoning regulations. VI-V-2. Variances from Floodway Provisions Not Authorized The governing body will not by variance permit subdivision for building purposes in areas located entirely within the floodway of a flood of 100-year frequency as defined by Title 76, Chapter 5, MCA. VI-V-3. Procedure The subdivider shall include with the submission of the preliminary plat a written statement describing and justifying the requested variance. The applicant can request that the variance request be heard prior to submittal of the preliminary plat application, in which case, the Planning Department will follow public noticing procedures for variances associated with major subdivisions. The planning board will consider the requested variance and recommend its approval or denial to the governing body. VI-V-4. Conditions In granting variances, the governing body may impose reasonable conditions to secure the objectives of these regulations. When a variance is granted, the motion to approve the proposed subdivision must contain a statement describing the variance and the facts and conditions upon which the issuance of the variance is based. 54 VII. DEFINITIONS Whenever the following words or phrases appear in these regulations, they shall have the meaning assigned to them by this section. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present tense include the future; the singular, unless otherwise specifically defined in a particular section, includes the plural, and the plural the singular. 1. ACCESS (LEGAL AND PHYSICAL): Legal access means that each lot in a subdivision abuts a public (city, county, state, or federal) street or road, or that the subdivider has obtained adequate and appropriate easements across all necessary properties from a public road to each lot in the subdivision. Proof of legal access can be either documented legal access from landowner(s), court judgment, or a certification of a licensed title abstractor Physical access means that the street or road conforming to the subdivision design standards which provides all weather normal vehicular access from a public street or road to each lot in the subdivision. 2. ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE: Any building or structure used incidentally to another building or structure. It may be unenclosed, without a complete exterior wall system enclosing the area under roof or floor above. (2a) Accessory structure (within an RV Park) means buildings or other structures erected to support the use of a recreational vehicle park, located on the same lot as the principal use 3. ADT: Average Daily Trips for vehicles based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers land use code. 4. ASPECT: Compass direction toward which a slope faces. 5. ADJOINING LANDOWNER (ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER): The owner of record of a parcel of land that is contiguous, at any point, or land that is separated from the parcel by a road, watercourse or deeded right-of-way. 6. AGRICULTURE: All aspects of farming or ranching including the cultivation or tilling of soil; dairying; the production, cultivation, growing, harvesting of agricultural or horticultural commodities; raising of livestock, bees, fur-bearing animals or poultry; and any practices including, forestry or lumbering operations, including preparation for market or delivery to storage, to market, or to carriers for transportation to market. . 7. AGRICULTURAL WATER USER FACILITIES: Those facilities which provide water for irrigation or stock watering to agricultural lands for the production of agricultural products. These facilities include, but are not limited to, ditches, head gates, pipes, and other water conveying facilities. 8. BLOCK: A group of lots, tracts or parcels within well-defined and fixed boundaries. 9. BUILDING ENVELOPE: The designated area of a lot within which a structure or structures can be built and which is depicted or described on a site plan or final subdivision plat. 10. CANYON: A deep valley with steep slopes carved from the landscape by a river or a stream. 55 11. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY: A drawing of a field survey prepared by a professional land surveyor for the purpose of disclosing facts pertaining to boundary locations. 12. COMBUSTIBLE: Any material that, in the form in which it is used and under conditions anticipated will ignite and burn (see Noncombustible). 13. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MASTER PLAN, OR GROWTH POLICY: means a comprehensive development plan, master plan, or comprehensive plan that was adopted pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 1, MCA, before October 1, 1999, or a policy that was adopted pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 1, MCA, on or after October 1, 1999. 14. CONDOMINIUM: A form of individual ownership with unrestricted right of disposal of one or more units in a multiple unit project, with the land and other parts of the project held in common ownership or use with owners of the other units, pursuant to Title 70, Chapter 23, MCA. 15. COVENANT (PROTECTIVE COVENANT): A limitation contained in a deed or other document that restricts or regulates the use of the real property. 16. CRITICAL FIRE WEATHER: A set of weather conditions (usually a combination of high temperatures, low relative humidity and strong wind) whose effects on fire behavior make control difficult and threaten firefighter safety. (See also: Fire Weather) 17. DEDICATION: The deliberate appropriation of land by an owner for any general and public use, reserving to the landowner no rights that are incompatible with the full exercise and enjoyment of the public use to which the property has been devoted. [76-3-103(3), MCA]. 18. DEVELOPMENT: Land use development or construction projects that involve substantial property improvement and usually a change in the land-use character within a subject property or properties. Such development generally involves using land for residential or commercial purposes. 19. DEQ: The Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 20. DIVISION OF LAND: The segregation of one or more parcels of land from a larger tract held in single or undivided ownership by transferring or contracting to transfer title to or possession of a portion of the tract or properly filing a certificate of survey or subdivision plat establishing the identity of the segregated parcels pursuant to the MSPA. The conveyance of a tract of record or an entire parcel of land that was created by a previous division of land is not a division of land. [76-3-103(4), MCA]. 21. DRIVEWAY: A vehicular ingress and egress route that serves no more than two dwelling units. 22. DWELLING UNIT: Any structure or portion thereof providing complete, independent and permanent living facilities for one household. 23. EASEMENT: Authorization by a property owner for another to use, or restriction on the right of the owner to use, all or a portion of the owner’s property for a specified purpose. 56 24. ENGINEER (PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER): A person licensed in conformance with the Montana Engineers' and Land Surveyors' Act (Title 37, Chapter 67, MCA) to practice engineering in the State of Montana. 25. EVACUATION: The temporary movement of people and their possessions from locations threatened by a hazard. 26. FIRE CHIMNEY: Topographical features, usually canyons, gulches or valleys, which tend to funnel or otherwise concentrate fire toward the top of steep slopes. Fire Chimneys are generally less than ½ mile in length, have slopes of 20% or steeper, are less than 600 feet wide, and are at least 120 feet deep as measured from the bottom of the ravine to the crest of either adjacent ridge or slope. 27. FIRE FLOW: The flow rate of a water supply, measured at 20 psi (137.9 kPa) residual pressure that is available for fire fighting. 28. FIRE HAZARD: A fuel complex, defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition, and location, which determines the ease of ignition and/or resistance to fire control. 29. FIRE HYDRANT: A valved connection on a year-round water supply system having one or more outlets that is used to supply water for fire departments. a. PRESSURIZED HYDRANT: An arrangement of pipe permanently connected to a year- round water source with a pressurized water supply system that provides a ready means of water supply for firefighting purposes. b. DRY (DRAFT) HYDRANT: An arrangement of pipe permanently connected to a year- round water source other that a piped, pressurized water supply system that provides a ready means of water supply for firefighting purposes and that utilizes the drafting (suction) capability of fire department pumpers. 30. FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY (FPA): Agency having jurisdiction for residential fire protection. 31. FIRE PROTECTION FEATURE: A fire protection feature is any feature outlined in the fire prevention plan or fire protection plan, or any other features that aid in the prevention or protection from fire. 32. FIRE WEATHER: Weather conditions favorable to the ignition and rapid spread of fire. In wildfires, this generally includes high temperatures combined with strong winds and low humidity. See “Critical Fire Weather.” 33. FIRST MINOR SUBDIVISION: A proposed subdivision from a tract of record that has not been subdivided or created by a subdivision under the MSPA, or will not result in a tract of record that creates more than five parcels under 160 acres in size [76-3-609(2), MCA]. 34. FLOOD: The water of any watercourse or drainage which is above the bank or outside the channel and banks of such watercourse or drainage [76-5-103 (8), MCA]. 57 35. FLOOD OF 100 YEAR FREQUENCY: A flood magnitude which has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year, or is a flood magnitude which is expected to recur on the average of once every 100 years [76-5-103 (9), MCA]. 36. FLOODPLAIN: The area adjoining the watercourse or drainage that would be covered by the floodwater of a flood of 100 year frequency [76-5-103 (10), MCA]. 37. FLOODWAY: The channel of a watercourse or drainage and those portions of the floodplain adjoining the channel that are reasonably required to carry and discharge the floodwater of any watercourse or drainage [76-5-103 (11), MCA]. 38. FUELS: All combustible materials within the WUI including, but not limited to, vegetation and structures. 39. FUEL BREAK: An area, strategically located for fighting anticipated fires, where the native vegetation has been permanently modified or replaced so that fires burning into it can be more easily controlled. Fuel breaks divide fire-prone areas into smaller areas for easier fire control and to provide access for firefighting. 40. FUEL LOADING: The volume of fuel in a given area. Generally expressed in tons or pounds per acre, fuel loading may be referenced to fuel size or time lag categories, and may include surface fuels or total fuels. 41. GOVERNING BODY: The governing authority of a county, city, town, or consolidated local government organized pursuant to law [76-3-103 (7), MCA]. 42. GREENBELT: An area with fire-resistive vegetation (planted or native), maintained to cause a reduction in fire intensity, and used for purposes other than fire protection (golf course, cemetery, park, playground, mowed park, orchard, etc.). 43. GROUND FUELS: All combustible materials such as grass, duff, loose surface litter, tree or shrub roots, rotting wood, leaves, peat, or sawdust that typically support combustion. 44. GULCH: A V-shaped valley formed by erosion. It may contain a small perennial or ephemeral stream. 45. HAZARD: A fuel complex defined by kind, arrangement, volume, condition, and location that determines the ease of ignition and/or of resistance to fire control. 46. IMPROVED PROPERTY: A piece of land or real estate upon which a structure has been placed, a marketable crop is growing (including timber), or other property improvement has been made. 47. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT: A contractual agreement that may be required by the governing body to ensure the construction of such improvements as required by local subdivision regulations. The improvement agreement may require collateral to secure the construction of such improvements, such as the deposit of certified funds, irrevocable letters of credit, performance or property bonds, private or public escrow agreements, or similar financial guarantees. 58 48. ISO: The Insurance Service Organization collects information on municipal fire-protection efforts in communities throughout the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data using a Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). ISO assigns a Public Protection Classification value from 1 to 10. Class 1 generally represents superior property fire protection, and Class 10 indicates that the area's fire-suppression program doesn't meet ISO’s minimum criteria. By classifying communities' ability to suppress fires, ISO helps communities evaluate their public fire-protection services. The program provides an objective, countrywide standard that helps fire departments in planning and budgeting for facilities, equipment, and training. By securing lower fire insurance premiums for communities with better public protection, the PPC program provides incentives and rewards for communities that choose to improve their firefighting services. 49. LADDER FUELS: Fuels that provide vertical continuity, allowing fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. 50. LAND USE: The type or degree of activity occurring or intended to occur on a piece of land. 51. LANDOWNER: All individuals, groups, or parties with a title interest in the property. For purposes of 76-3-207, MCA, when a parcel of land for which an exemption from subdivision review is claimed is being conveyed under a contract-for-deed, the terms “property owner,” “landowner,” and “owner” mean the seller of the parcel under the contract-for-deed (24.183.1104 ARM). For all other purposes of these regulations, the terms “property owner,” “landowner,” and “owner” mean both the seller and the purchaser under a contract for deed. 52. LIFE SAFETY: Actions taken to prevent the endangerment of people threatened by emergency incidents or by activities associated with the management. 53. LOCAL SERVICES: Local services are defined as any and all services that local governments, public or private utilities are authorized to provide for the benefit of their citizens. 54. LOT: A parcel, plot, or other land area created by subdivision for sale, rent, or lease. 55. LOT MEASUREMENT: a. Lot Depth – The length of a line drawn perpendicularly to the front lot line and extending to the rear lot line. b. Lot Width – The average width of the lot. c. Lot Frontage – The width of the front lot line. 56. LOT TYPES: a. Corner Lot – A lot located at the intersection of two streets. b. Interior/Perimeter Lot – A lot with frontage on only one street. 59 c. Through or Double-Frontage Lot – A lot whose front and rear lines both abut on streets. d. Flag Lot – A lot of irregular shape, the bulk of which is normally situated to the rear of other lots, having as its frontage and access a drive connecting it to a street. 57. MAJOR SUBDIVISION: A subdivision that creates six or more lots. 58. MINOR SUBDIVISION: A subdivision that results in five or fewer lots from a tract of land which was not originally created through subdivision. 59. MOBILE (MANUFACTURED) HOME: A detached residential dwelling unit, which may consist of two or more sections, fabricated at a factory and designed to be towed on its own chassis to a building site for occupation as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation. The term includes, but is not limited to, “trailer homes,” “house trailers,” and “manufactured homes” whether or not the unit has been constructed after July 1, 1976, in conformance with Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards. The term does not include “modular” or “factory-built buildings” that are fabricated at a factory in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standards applicable to site-built homes, and are transported to the site for final assembly on a permanent foundation. 60. MOBILE (MANUFACTURED) HOME SPACE: A designated portion of a parcel of land designed for the accommodation of one mobile home and its accessory buildings or structures for the exclusive use of the occupants. 61. MOBILE (MANUFACTURED) HOME PARK: A parcel of land that provides or will provide spaces for three or more mobile homes. 62. MOBILE (MANUFACTURED) HOME PAD: That area of a mobile home space which has been prepared for the placement of a mobile home. 63. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MINIMUM STANDARDS: Minimum standards promulgated by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 4, Part 1, MCA. 64. MONUMENT (PERMANENT MONUMENT): Any structure of masonry, metal, or other permanent, durable material placed in the ground, which is exclusively identifiable as a monument to a survey point, expressly placed for surveying reference. 65. MSPA: Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA. 66. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: The natural environment is defined as the physical conditions which exist within a given area, including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, sound, light and objects of historic and aesthetic significance. 67. NON-COMBUSTIBLE: A material that, in the form in which it is used and under the conditions anticipated, will not aid combustion or add appreciable heat to an ambient fire. 60 68. OBSTRUCTIONS: Any object or collection of objects that may deter, hinder or block access. 69. OCCUPANCY: The purpose for which a building or portion thereof is used or intended to be used. 70. OPEN SPACE: Land or water areas retained for use as active or passive recreation areas or for resource protection in an essentially undeveloped state. 71. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The plan of a subdivision design proposed to be subdivided in stages. 72. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD): A land development project consisting of residential clusters, industrial parks, shopping centers, or office building parks that compose a planned mixture of land uses built in a prearranged relationship to each other and having open space and community facilities in common ownership or use [76-3-103 (10), MCA]. 73. PLANNING BOARD: A planning board formed pursuant to Title 76, Chapter 1, MCA. 74. PLAT: A graphical representation of a subdivision showing the division of land into lots, parcels, blocks, streets, alleys, and other divisions and dedications. a. Preliminary Plat: A neat and scaled drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the layout of streets, alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision that furnish a basis for review by a governing body as more specifically set forth in these regulations and the MSPA. b. Final Plat: The final drawing of the subdivision and dedication required to be prepared for filing for record with the county clerk and recorder containing all elements and requirements set forth in these regulations and the MSPA. (Title 76, Chapter 3, MCA). c. Amended Plat: The final drawing of any change to a filed platted subdivision , or any lots within a filed platted subdivision. d. Vacated Plat: A plat which has been voided under the provisions of MCA 76-3-305, 7-5-2501, 7-5-2502, 7-14-2616 (1) and/or (2), 7-14-2617, 7-14-4114 (1) and/or (2), and 7-14-3115. 75. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT: Private improvements are the same types of improvements as defined under PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, except the structure or facility has not been dedicated to the public or otherwise acquired by a government entity for public use. 76. PRIVATE ROAD: A road is private if its right-of-way has neither been dedicated nor acquired for public use. A private road may be open to use by the general public or public access may be restricted. 77. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY: The prevailing healthful, sanitary condition of well being for the community at large. Conditions that relate to public health and safety include but are not limited to: disease control and prevention; emergency services; 61 environmental health; flooding, fire or wildfire hazards, rock falls or landslides, unstable soils, steep slopes, and other natural hazards; high voltage lines or high pressure gas lines; and air or vehicular traffic safety hazards. 78. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: Any structure or facility constructed to serve more than one lot in a subdivision which is dedicated to the public or otherwise acquired by a government entity for public use. Examples of typical public improvements include parks, streets or roads, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street lighting, utilities, and systems for water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, or fire protection. 79. PUBLIC ROAD OR STREET: A road or street is public if its right-of-way has been dedicated or acquired for public use. 80. RATED ROOF: A roof constructed with a “roof covering assembly” that is listed as meeting the requirements for Class A, B, or C “roof covering as defined by the Department of Labor and Industry Building Codes Bureau. 81. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A vehicular type unit primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use that either has its own motor power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle. A recreation vehicle may have a body width of no more than fifteen (15) feet, including slide outs, and a body length of no more than forty (40) feet when factory equipped for the road. 82. RV Park: A development that is designed to accommodate RV's on dedicated sites either through short or long term rental and be fully licensed and ready for highway use. 83. RV Subdivision: A development that contains platted lots designed to accommodate RV's either through lease or individual ownership of a platted lot 84. RECREATIONAL CAMPING VEHICLE: A vehicular type unit primarily designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use that either has its own motor power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle. 85. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARK: A tract of land available to and principally used by the public for camping, where persons can park recreational vehicles for camping and sleeping purposes. 86. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SPACE/PAD: A designated portion of a recreational vehicle park designed for the placement of a single recreational vehicle and the exclusive use of its occupants. 87. REVIEWING AUTHORITY: The DEQ or local Board of Health or Sanitarian as authorized under Title 76, Chapter 4, MCA. 88. RIGHTS-OF-WAY: A linear public way established or dedicated for public purposes by a duly recorded plat, deed, easement, grant, prescription, condemnation, governmental authority or by operation of law, intended to be occupied by a street, non-motorized vehicle path, railroad, electric transmission lines, water line, sanitary sewer line, storm sewer line, or other similar uses. 62 89. RISK: The measure of the potential and severity of adverse effects to persons or property that results from an exposure to a wildland fire (direct flames, radiant heat, or firebrands). 90. SLASH: Accumulation of any burnable, organic material that has been severed or removed from its natural state. 91. SLOPE: Upward or downward incline or slant, usually calculated as a percent of slope (rise or fall per 100 ft (30.45m) of horizontal distance). 92. STATE: The State of Montana. 93. STREET OR ROAD: Any access, not including a driveway, providing access to more than two parcels and primarily intended for vehicular access. 94. STREET TYPES: For purposes of these regulations, street types are defined as follows: a. Alley: A public or private way reserved as a secondary means of access to the rear or side of lots which abut on and are served by public roads. b. Arterial: A street or road having the primary function of moving traffic with emphasis on a high level of mobility for through movement and the secondary function of providing access to adjacent land. Arterials generally carry relatively large volumes of traffic. Arterials have two to four lanes of moving traffic and should provide only limited access to abutting property. c. Collector: A street or road having the equally important functions of moving traffic and providing access to adjacent land. Collector streets have two moving traffic lanes and up to two parking lanes. d. Local Streets: A street or road having the primary function of serving abutting properties, and the secondary function of moving traffic. Local streets have two moving lanes of traffic, up to two parking lanes, and provide access to abutting properties. e. Half-Street: A portion of the width of a street, usually located along the perimeter of a subdivision, the remaining portion of which street must be located on adjacent property if the street is to be fully constructed. f. Cul-de-sac: A street having only one outlet for vehicular traffic and terminating in a turn-around area. g. Loop: A local street which begins and ends on the same street, generally used for access to properties. h. Frontage Access (Service Road): A local or collector street, usually parallel and adjacent to an arterial or major collector, which provides access to abutting properties and controls traffic access to arterials or collectors. 63 95. STRUCTURE: That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner. 96. STRUCTURE PROTECTION: Protecting a structure from the threat of damage from an advancing wildland fire. This involves the use of standard wildland protection tactics, control methods, and equipment, including fire control lines and the extinguishment of spot fires near or on the structure. The protection can be provided by both the rural and/or local government fire department and the wildland fire protection agency. 97. SUBDIVIDER: Any person, firm or corporation, or other entity which causes land to be subdivided or which proposes a subdivision of land [76-3-103(15), MCA]. When used in these regulations, the term "subdivider" may also include the property purchaser on a contract for deed or its agent, or the landowner's agent, if the landowner has provided the subdivision administrator written notification that the landowner's agent is authorized to act on the landowner's behalf and to receive notices regarding local government decisions concerning the subdivision. 98. SUBDIVISION: A division of land or land so divided which creates one or more parcels containing less than 160 acres that cannot be described as a one-quarter aliquot part of a United States government section, exclusive of public roadways, in order that the title to or possession of the parcels may be sold, rented, leased, or otherwise conveyed and includes any re-subdivision and further includes a condominium or area, regardless of its size, that provides or will provide multiple space for recreational camping vehicles or mobile homes [76-3-103(16), MCA]1. 99. SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR: The person or persons authorized by the governing body to perform the duties of review and administration set forth in these regulations. 100. SUBSEQUENT MINOR SUBDIVISION: A proposed subdivision from a tract of record that has been subdivided or created by a subdivision under the MSPA, or will result in a tract of record that creates more than five parcels under 160 acres in size.. [76-3-609(2), MCA]. 101. SURVEYOR (PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR): A person licensed in conformance with the Montana Engineers' and Land Surveyors' Act (Title 37, Chapter 67, MCA) to practice surveying in the State of Montana. 102. SURVEYOR (EXAMINING LAND SURVEYOR): A professional land surveyor duly appointed by the governing body to review surveys and plats submitted for filing. 103. SURVIVABLE SPACE: Survivable space is defined as the characteristics of a structure and the adjacent area and their ability to survive a wildland fire. Appropriate and applicable survivable space provisions provide the best chance for a structure to resist loss and/or major damage during a wildland fire, on its own, without direct suppression intervention by firefighters. 104. SWALE: A drainage channel or depression designed to direct surface water flow. 64 105. TITLE REPORT (ABSTRACT OF TITLE, SUBDIVISION GUARANTEE, OR PLATTING REPORT): A report from a title service company on the condition of title to the property proposed for subdivision, which identifies the owners of record of the property, lien holders, encumbrances, easements and restrictions of record, and all other conditions of title of public record, and accompanied by a guarantee of the accuracy of the report from the title insurance agent or its underwriter. 106. TOPOGRAPHY: General term to include characteristics of the ground surface such as plains, hills, mountains, slopes, and other physiographic features. 107. TOWNHOUSE LOT: Arrangement under which units share a common wall, and individuals own their own units and hold separate title to the land beneath the unit. 108. TRACT OF RECORD: An individual parcel of land, irrespective of ownership, that can be identified by legal description, independent of any other parcel of land, using documents on file in the records of the county clerk and recorder’s office [76-3-103(17)(a), MCA]. 109. TRAFFIC LANE: That portion of a roadway that provides a single lane of vehicle travel in one direction. 110. TREE CROWN: The primary and secondary branches growing out from the main stem, together with twigs and foliage. 111. TURNAROUND: A portion of a street or road, unobstructed by parking, that allows for a safe reversal of direction for emergency equipment. 112. TURNOUT-PULLOUT: An area along the edge of a street or road that provides a space for a vehicle to safely move out of a traffic lane in order to permit the passage of emergency or other types of vehicles. 113. URBAN/SUBURBAN: Residential density greater than two (2) dwelling units per acre. 114. VALLEY: An elongated depression of the earth's surface, usually found between ranges of hills or mountains. 115. VEGETATION: Any plant, native or planted, living or dead; tree, shrub, bush, grass, flower, etc. 116. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN: A vegetation management plan reduces the amount of fuel available for wildland fires, reducing the probability of a rapidly spreading wildland fire. Elements of the plan include removal of slash, snags, other ground fuels, ladder fuels and dead trees, and thinning of live vegetation. 117. VICINITY SKETCH: A map at a scale suitable to locate a proposed subdivision, showing the boundary lines of all adjacent properties and streets and other information necessary to determine the general location of the proposed subdivision. 118. WILDLIFE: Those animals that are not domesticated or tamed, or as may be defined in a Growth Policy. 119. WILDLIFE HABITAT: The place or area where wildlife naturally lives or travels through. 65 120. WILDLAND: An area in which development is essentially nonexistent except for roads, railroads, power lines, and similar facilities. 121. WILDLAND FIRE OR WILDFIRE: An unplanned and uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, at times involving structures. 122. WILDLAND FIRE PROTECTION: Any non-structure fire protection that occurs in the wildland with the primary responsibility of protecting natural resources and watersheds from damage. State and federal forestry or land management and some local government agencies normally provide wildland fire protection. 123. WILDLAND/URBAN INTERFACE (WUI): The presence of structures in locations in which the FPA determines that topographical features, vegetation fuel types, local weather conditions, and prevailing winds, in conjunction with structural ignitability, may result in the potential for ignition of the structures within the area from flames and firebrands of a wildland fire. Attachment DEED to Property Office of Planning and Development Lincoln County, Wyoming www.lincolncountywy.gov Kemmerer Office Afton Office 925 Sage Avenue Suite 201 601 E 5th Avenue Kemmerer, WY 83101 Mail: 421 Jefferson St, Ste 701 307-877-9056 Afton, WY 83110 fax 307-877-6439 307-885-3106 Tentative Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting HEARING DATE: April 19, 2023 TIME: 6:00 p.m. LOCATIONS: Video Conference between the following locations: Lincoln County Courthouse, Commissioner Boardroom, 925 Sage Avenue 3rd Floor, Kemmerer, WY & Afton Planning & Engineering Office, Conference Room, 61 East 5th Avenue, Afton, WY (The Project is tentatively scheduled for the County Commissioners Meeting, which will be held in the Commissioners Board Room, on May 3, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. in Kemmerer WY.) All interested citizens are invited to attend the public hearing and to provide input. Those planning on attending should call the day before to see if the meeting is still scheduled as noted above or if changes have taken place. APPLICANTS: Sunroc Corporation FILE No: 103 CUP 23 COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Etna PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit COUNTY STAFF: Robert C. Davis PIN # 3519-021-00-340 PROJECT: A Conditional Use Permit Application for expansion of an existing 10-acre gravel pit operation on roughly 39.39 acres in the Rural zone. The applicant proposes to convert the existing Limited Mining Operation into a Small Mining Operation allowing 10 additional disturbance acres per year up to 27.5 acres. See Attached Information LOCATION: 3 miles northwest of Star Valley Ranch, Wyoming. E1⁄2NW1⁄4 of Section 2, T35N R119W. THIS APPLICATION WILL BE REVIEWED ACCORDING TO STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES OF THE LINCOLN COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS (see website at www.lincolncountywy.gov). Enclosed is a copy of the location map/site plan. Please respond with your written, faxed, or email (planning@lincolncountywy.gov) comments by April 10, 2023 no later than 5:00 pm in order to be included in the planning staff report. Please note that only landowners within 300 feet of the proposed site are notified individually. The Staff Report for this project will be available on April 12, 2023 at 5:00 p.m. for your perusal on the Planning website address: http://weblink.lcwy.org/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0 Projects for Planning, and then click on the corresponding File Number noted above. Star Valley Ranch 28 33 29 3432 30 27 31 27 36 25 33 35 26 34 28 30 16 09 15 20 07 05 0306 22 04 19 28 18 29 10 27 08 17 21 0204 15 21 12 14 25 10 13 09 11 16 26 03 28 24222723 01 36N 119W 36N 118W 35N 118W35N 119W Hawk'sRes t Ro a d Rock Farm CourtStockman RoadRock Farm Road £¤89BEDFORD LLC ALLRED, LAEL L & CHRISTINA K TRUSTEES OUTHOUSE PROPERTIES,LLC JUDGE, STEPHEN W ROBERTS, JAMES S & LESLIE A JUDGE, THOMAS M.& LEE ELLEN COUGAR RANCH LTD. SUNROCCORPORATION JOHNSTON, JULIA L TROMPETER,BARBARA A WHEATLEY, LILA B WHEELER PROPERTIES,LLC ANDERSON, SCOTT G &JENNIFER A CHASON, KAREN J CHASON, HUBERT L &LISA F AUSTINDEVELOPMENT, INC. ROBINSON, THOMAS J ROBERTS, JAMES C & SHARRI L O & O HOLDINGS LLC ALLRED, LAEL L & CHRISTINAK TRUSTEES SALT RIVER DEVELOPMENT,LLC OLIVER, BARBARAM TRUSTEE, ETAL ROSA INVESTMENTS, LLC BLACKBIRDRENTALS, LLC OLVERA, MARIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONOF WYOMING SOLIDCONCRETE LLC VOGEL, MICHAELJ & LYNN A OTTOBRE, ANTHONY A &JANELL M SAVARESE, PAIGE SONDGEROTH, CLAY TOPP, CECIL O & DENISE S Maxar, Microsoft Conditional Use Application Projects US Highways WY Highways Township & Range Sections Municipalities Public Noticing 103 CUP 23 Gravel Pit Expansion Sunroc Corporation Prepared using available data by Destry Dearden, on 27 Jan. 2023. Map is for informational purposes only and in no way represents an official survey of land. 4/9/23, 4:03 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Comment for Project Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762624649698543106&simpl=msg-f:1762624649698543106 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Comment for Project Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit 1 message Alex Sinclair <sinclaircrf@gmail.com>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 10:04 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov, kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov, jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov, teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov Good day! We bought a home in Etna for the beauty and open views. Since then, more and more commercial entities have been popping up. RV sales, and future RV park. Where does it stop? What is the environmental impact of this? What protections will there be on the surrounding air and water table? Adding a batch plant to a residential area just seems wrong to me. The smell, the look, and the sound are not what I want in a neighbor! I also believe you wouldn’t want this as yours either. Please vote against allowing this to happen. This is in reference to Applicant: Sunroc Corporation File NO: 103 CUP 23 Community Plan Area: Etna Project Name: Sunroc CorporationExpansion of Existing Gravel Pit Thank you for your time, Alex Sinclair 27 Pinto Ln. Etna Wy. 4/19/23, 8:09 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - File No: 103 CUP 23 Sunroof corporation Expansion of existing gravel pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1763177376157078080&simpl=msg-f:1763177376157078080 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> File No: 103 CUP 23 Sunroof corporation Expansion of existing gravel pit 1 message Alicia Payseno <hotti774ever29@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 12:29 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov, "etna.coalition@gmail.com" <etna.coalition@gmail.com> I Alicia Payseno and Jodell Payseno are opposed to this. 4/10/23, 1:24 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Etna Hot batch and Cement plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762817749828125528&simpl=msg-f:1762817749828125528 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Etna Hot batch and Cement plant 1 message Nunya Business <generic1970@hotmail.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 1:13 PM To: "planning@lincolncountywy.gov" <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> My family and I wholeheartedly oppose this application for expansion by Sunroc. The ramifications on our environment and way of living would be in jeopardy. Has any environmental impact study been done? How will they handle the pollution that this will cause? How will it affect our water? Air quality? Livestock? Wildlife? Our people? These questions should have answers based on a pertinent study that relates to the EPA guidelines regarding this type of business. This type of business in the middle of our rural residential area is unacceptable. Do not allow this to occur. Do not approve this expansion. Amanda Lewis Charles Lewis (307)920-1210 5/24/23, 2:42 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Fwd: Sunroc Expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1764164573369878948&simpl=msg-f:1764164573369878948 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Fwd: Sunroc Expansion 1 message Kent Connelly <kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov>Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:00 AM To: Jerry Hansen <jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov>, Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>, Teri Bowers <teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov> FYI if this one wasn’t sent to you. Note her reference to there own water sampling. That is not the only time I have heard of there interpretation of water samples and possibly issues for us ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Anna Jaques <annajaques00@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 4:37 PM Subject: Sunroc Expansion To: <kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov> Mr. Connelly, We’d like to express our concerns for the Sunroc Corporation expansion. We live on 149 Waterline Rd in Etna and run a business just down the road from our house. The traffic has really increased on this stretch of highway and that’s one of our main concerns with the approval of this expansion. Almost daily, our kids bus stop is ran past by traffic on the opposite side of the highway. Adding more traffic and large trucks from this pit will no doubt be dangerous. People just don’t slow down or stop for much these days. Our other main concern is the water quality. We currently have high levels of copper and lead in our well water that we’re investigating, I can’t imagine what this plant could do to the water tables. Please consider the voices of your neighbors in Etna. We truly want a beautiful community with safe drinking water, safe property values and safe commuting for our loved ones. Thank you, Anna & Brandon Jaques Mountain West Mechanical Sent from my iPhone -- Thank you Kent Connelly Lincoln County Commissioner Office: 307.877.2003 Cell: 307.727.8277 4/19/23, 8:20 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation gravel pit expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762921673863201530&simpl=msg-f:1762921673863201530 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation gravel pit expansion 1 message Anna Jaques <annajaques00@gmail.com>Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 4:45 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom it may concern: I strongly oppose the approval for expansion on the Sunroc gravel pit hot asphalt batch plant. Not only will this cause decreased property values, but it has the potential to cause negative health effects. As a neighbor down the highway from this plant I strongly urge you to reconsider your approval. The truck traffic this will yield will cause congestion to an already congested section of highway. Please think about your community, this is not a good fit for this area. Sincerely, Anna Jaques 149 Waterline Rd Etna WY Sent from my iPhone Center for Health, Environment & Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 chej@chej.org www.chej.org Asphalt Plants FactPack – P131 Center for Health, Environment & Justice FactPack - PUB 131 June 2015 Copyright 2015 by Center for Health, Environment & Justice. All rights reserved. For Permission to reprint, please contact CHEJ. Printed in the U.S.A. P.O. Box 6806 Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 chej@chej.org www.chej.org Asphalt Plants About the Center for Health, Environment & Justice CHEJ mentors a movement building healthier communities by empowering people to prevent harm caused by chemical and toxic threats. We accomplish our work through programs focusing on different types of environmental health threats. CHEJ also works with communities to empower groups by providing the tools, direction, and encouragement they need to advocate for human health, to prevent harm and to work towards environmental integrity. Following her successful effort to prevent further harm for families living in contaminated Love Canal, Lois Gibbs founded CHEJ in 1981 to continue the journey. To date, CHEJ has assisted over 15,000 groups nationwide. Details on CHEJ’s efforts to help families and communities prevent harm can be found on www.chej.org. Mentoring a Movement Empowering People Preventing Harm Center for Health, Environment & Justice P.O. Box 6806 l Falls Church, VA 22040 l Phone: 703.237.2249 l Fax: 703.237.8389 l www.chej.org Table of Contents (page numbers are listed in upper right hand corner) Introduction to Asphalt Production Asphalt Plant Production – BE SAFE Campaign 1 Asphalt Plants: Frequently Asked Questions – North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Air Quality Division 5 Asphalt – Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Evans, J.)7 Asphalt Plant Emissions: What are the Issues during Site Selection? – Massachusetts Association of Health Boards Quarterly 10 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emissions Assessment Report – US EPA 12 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors: Hot Mix Asphalt Plants – US EPA 28 Proposed Revision to AP -42, 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants – US EPA 57 Asphalt Fumes 58 59 60 62 72 74 75 76 77 78 87 Community Action Studies Document Negative Impacts from Asphalt Plants – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Asphalt Plant Fugitive Air Emissions: A Public Health Hazard – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Asphalt Plant versus Wood Stove Pollution – Blue Ridge Environmental defense League Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt – National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Asphalt Fumes – Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens Exposure to Bitumen Fumes and Genotoxic Effects on Turkish Asphalt Workers – Clinical Toxicology Studies of Carcinogenicity of Bitumen Fume in Humans – American Journal of Industrial Medicine Acute Symptoms Associated with Asphalt Fume Exposure Among Road Pavers – American Journal of Industrial Medicine Toxic Health Effects Including Reversible Macrothrombocytosis in Workers Exposed to Asphalt Fumes – American Journal of Industrial Medicine Literature Review of Health Effects Caused by Occupational Exposure to Asphalt Fumes – National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Health Services Carcinoma of the Pharynx and Tonsils in an Occupational Cohort of Asphalt workers -Zanardi ~ Epidemiology Cancer Risk in Asphalt Workers and Roofers: Review and Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies – American Journal of Industrial Medicine Risk of Cancer/Illness from Asphalt – Kunda Park Neighbours Asphalt Plant, and its Pollution Potential, Part of Quarry Deal – The Pottstown Mercury 91 92 94 98 Groups Charge Maymead with Intentional Violations – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Website – Calgary for Clean Air PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust from Coal-Tar Sealcoated Pavement is Widespread in the United States – U.S. Geological Survey Increased Suicide Rate is Possibly Linked to Chemicals Released from nearby Asphalt Plants, Study Suggests – UNC School of Medicine Asphalt Pollution Probe Extends – Recycling Today Carcinogens Discovered Near Maymead Plant – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Childhood Brain Cancers Near Asphalt Industry in Salisbury, North Carolina – Dr. Richard Weisler Cancer Risk From Incidental Ingestion Exposures to PAHs - Environmental Science & Technology Respiratory Symptoms with Asphalt Fumes - International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Childhood Cancer and Pollution – Rachel's Environmental and Health News Asphalt Plants: Contaminants of Concern – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Asphalt Plant Would Expose Children to Toxins – Petaluma 360 Indians Appeal Asphalt Plant – Mendocino Country Environmentalist Group Opposes Asphalt Plant: The Plant would be about Half Mile from Colfax Elementary School – News and Record (Greensboro, NC) Mountain Air Action Project Asphalt Plant Report – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund APAC: Polluting Without Boundaries – Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund Paving the Way: Behind-the-Scenes Lobbying Allows Big-Money Interests like the Asphalt Industry to Steamroll Citizens – The Independent Weekly (Durham, NC) Coal Tar-Containing Asphalt Resource or Hazardous Waste? – Journal of Industrial Ecology Green Asphalt and Concrete: Eco Friendly Streets – EcoFuss 100 104 105 108 109 111 113 137 139 141 143 151 160 171 172 133 123 131 Health Impacts News Items Resource Alternatives BE SAFE: Take Precautionary Action to Protect Our Communities from Asphalt Plant Air Pollution ASPHALT PLANT POLLUTION Asphalt plants mix gravel and sand with crude oil derivatives to make the asphalt used to pave roads, highways, and parking lots across the U.S. These plants release millions of pounds of chemicals to the air during production each year, including many cancer-causing toxic air pollutants such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and cadmium. Other toxic chemicals are released into the air as the asphalt is loaded into trucks and hauled from the plant site, including volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and very fine condensed particulates.[EPA] Asphalt Fumes are Known Toxins. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states “Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation.” [EPA]. According to one health agency, asphalt fumes contain substances known to cause cancer, can cause coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of the skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. [NJDHSS] Animal studies show PAHs affect reproduction, cause birth defects and are harmful to the immune system. [NJDHSS] The US Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs may be carcinogenic to humans. [DHHS] Health Impacts & Loss of Property Value. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), a regional environmental organization, has done two studies on the adverse impacts on property values and health for residents living near asphalt plants. A property value study documented losses of up to 56% because of the presence of a nearby asphalt plant. In another study, nearly half of the residents reported negative impacts on their health from a new asphalt plant. The door-to-door health survey found 45% of residents living within a half mile of the plant reported a deterioration of their health, which began after the plant opened. The most frequent health problems cited were high blood pressure (18% of people surveyed), sinus problems (18%), headaches (14%), and shortness of breath (9%). [BREDL] Flawed Tests Underestimate Health Risks. In addition to smokestack emissions, large amounts of harmful “fugitive emissions” are released as the asphalt is moved around in trucks and conveyor belts, and is stored in stockpiles. A small asphalt plant producing 100 thousand tons of asphalt a year may release up to 50 tons of toxic fugitive emissions into the air. [Dr. R. Nadkarni] Stagnant air and local weather patterns often increase the level of exposure to local communities. In fact, most asphalt plants are not even tested for toxic emissions. The amounts of these pollutants that are released from a facility are estimated by computers and mathematical formulas rather than by actual stack testing, estimates that experts agree do not accurately predict the amount of toxic fugitive emissions released and the risks they pose. According to Dr. Luanne Williams, a North Carolina state toxicologist, 40% of the toxins from asphalt plant smokestacks even meet air quality standards—and for the other 60% of these emissions, the state lacks sufficient data to determine safe levels. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 1 1. HEED EARLY WARNING SIGNS BE SAFE’s FOUR PRINCIPLES 2. PUT SAFETY FIRST 3. EXERCISE DEMOCRACY There is documented evidence from health experts and federal and state regulators of the serious health effects of asphalt plant emissions. We must heed these early warning signs and take action to prevent communities from further exposure to cancer-causing substances released by asphalt plants. The following actions are needed: Moratoriums on asphalt plant construction and operation in communities where people live and go to school; Stricter testing and enforcement of air quality standards at asphalt plants; and Improved air standards that address all toxic contaminants—including fugitive emissions. Even if an asphalt plant meets all state and federal air pollution standards, people living nearby are still exposed to cancer-causing substances that can cause long-term damage. These standards are based on the principle of “acceptable risk”, and assume each state will enforce the standards, the plants will operate perfectly, and the owners can be trusted to operate on an honor system where they are expected to follow all the laws and regulations that apply to their facility without any government oversight. In the majority of cases, it is unknown whether the ‘theoretical’ air emissions predicted by computer models and used by plant owners accurately reflect air emissions from a plant’s daily operations. We must put safety first and shut down or overhaul the current system that fails to protect communities from the daily health hazards of asphalt plant pollution. Federal regulations based on the “acceptable risk” model and self-regulating honor systems are inadequate to protect public health. Many states rely on inadequate federal standards that do not take into account local factors such as how close an industrial facility is to homes and schools, local weather patterns, and additional ‘nuisance’ factors such as the effect acrid and nauseating smells have on the quality of life in these communities. Organizations are working to improve federal and state standards and add asphalt plant fumes to the hazardous air pollutant (HAP) list under the federal Clean Air Act. Communities can take advantage of any state laws aimed at protecting local values that allow counties to determine where new industrial facilities will be located. These communities can band together to work with their county governments to prevent new asphalt plants from being located in their neighborhoods and prevent existing plants from renewing their permits until further evaluation of public health risks are conducted. BE SAFE is coordinated by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. To sign the platform or for more information, contact us at CHEJ, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040, 703-237-2249, or 518-732-4538, or visit www.besafenet.com CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 2 References: 4. CHOOSE THE SAFEST SOLUTIONS Communities faced with an asphalt plant proposal should push for setbacks from residences and community buildings, site specific health-based air pollution modeling and monitoring, enclosures for loading zones, and preferably a zero emissions asphalt plant, with total containment of air pollutants. Investigate Pollution in Your Area. To find out more about asphalt plant pollution in your area, go to www.scorecard.org Join the Clean Air Campaign. Support the campaign on asphalt plant pollution. To find out more, contact the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League at www.bredl.org. BE SAFE. Take precautionary action to prevent asphalt plant pollution. Sign on to the BE SAFE Platform on the next page. Be counted when we deliver this national Platform to the White House in 2005. Endorse the BE SAFE Platform today at www.besafenet.com. Your Vote Counts. The next election will set the country’s course on asphalt plant regulations. For information on environmental voting records, contact www.sierraclub.org and www.lcv.org. To register to vote, contact www.earthday.net US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry, [EPA] http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s01.pdf. Final Rule to Reduce Toxic Air Emissions From Asphalt Processing & Asphalt Roofing Manufacturing Facilities, Environmental Protection Agency, June 2000 [EPA]. Hazardous Substance Fact Sheet, Asphalt Fumes. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services, January 2001 [NJDHSS]. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1995. Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service[DHHS]. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Asphalt Health Survey, [BREDL]. Dr. R. Nadkarni developed mass balance equation to estimate total fugitive emissions and his comments to Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality are at www.bredl.org/pdf/DEQ072503.pdf. [Dr. R. Nadkarni]. Primary Contributor: Lou Zeller, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. Clean Air Campaign Halts Asphalt Pollution & Improves Air Policies “Nothing could have prepared us for the horrors of that plant; we cannot be outside when it operates, we are prisoners.” Jerry Starr, Macon County, NC Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL) has been leading a Clean Air Campaign to reduce toxic pollution from asphalt plants in North Carolina. In partnership with many community groups, BREDL defeated numerous asphalt plant proposals, spearheaded a trend of countywide moratoriums on asphalt plant construction and operation, and mounted plant permit challenges. The campaigns included radio ads, posted yard signs, newspaper display ads, and stories in local newspapers. BREDL and the Clean Air Campaign have succeeded in reducing asphalt pollution and improving air quality policies. North Carolina and Tennessee signed an agreement to protect air quality in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park and other wilderness areas. North Carolina has improved methods to analyze fugitive toxic air emissions and expanded the Toxic Air Pollutant program to include all operating and proposed asphalt plants. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 3 Take precautionary action to prevent asphalt plant pollution. Sign onto the BE SAFE Platform. Be counted when we deliver this national platform to the White House in 2005. Endorse the platform today at www.besafenet.com BE SAFE Platform Platform Principles In the 21st century, we envision a world in which our food, water and air are clean, and our children grow up healthy and thrive. Everyone needs a protected, safe community and workplace, and natural environment to enjoy. We can make this world vision a reality. The tools we bring to this work are prevention, safety, responsibility and democracy. Our goal is to prevent pollution and environmental destruction before it happens. We support this precautionary approach because it is preventive medicine for our environment and health. It makes sense to: ■ Prevent pollution and make polluters, not taxpayers, pay and assume responsibility for the damage they cause; ■ Protect our children from chemical and radioactive exposures to avoid illness and suffering; ■ Promote use of safe, renewable, non-toxic technologies; ■ Provide a natural environment we can all enjoy with clean air, swimmable, fishable water and stewardship for our national forests. HEED EARLY WARNINGS Government and industry have a duty to prevent harm, when there is credible evidence that harm is occurring or is likely to occur—even when the exact nature and full magnitude of harm is not yet proven. PUT SAFETY FIRST Industry and government have a responsibility to thoroughly study the potential for harm from a new chemical or technology before it is used—rather than assume it is harmless until proven otherwise. We need to ensure it is safe now, or we will be sorry later. Research on impacts to workers and the public needs to be confirmed by independent third parties. EXERCISE DEMOCRACY Precautionary decisions place the highest priority on protecting health and the environment, and help develop cleaner technologies and industries with effective safeguards and enforcement. Government and industry decisions should be based on meaningful citizen input and mutual respect (the golden rule), with the highest regard for those whose health may be affected and for our irreplaceable natural resources—not for those with financial interests. Uncompromised science should inform public policy. CHOOSE THE SAFEST SOLUTION Decision-making by government, industry and individuals must include an evaluation of alternatives, and the choice of the safest, technically feasible solutions. We support innovation and promotion of technologies and solutions that create a healthy environment and economy, and protect our natural resources. We choose a “better safe than sorry” approach motivated by caution and prevention. We endorse the common-sense approach outlined in the BE SAFE’s four principles listed below. BE SAFE is coordinated by the Center for Health, Environment & Justice. To sign the platform or for more information, contact us at CHEJ, P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040, 703-237-2249, or 518-732-4538, or visit www.besafenet.com CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 4 Frequently Asked Questions lantsP sphaltADivision of Air Quality The N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) receives many calls and letters about asphalt plants, generally when companies apply for permits to build new facilities. North Carolina has about 150 asphalt plants, and about five new facilities are permitted each year. Many asphalt plants are portable, so they can be moved to different locations based on needs for new highways and other construc- tion projects. Before a company can build or operate an asphalt plant, it must obtain an air quality permit and in some cases may need water quality permits. In DENR, the Division of Air Quality handles air permits for asphalt plants, and the Division of Water Quality handles water permits (if applicable). regulations. All asphalt plants must meet air quality limits for particulates, which include dust and soot. In addition, all new, modified or relocated asphalt plants must comply with the state air toxics rules, including emissions from stacks and fugi- tive sources. To meet air quality limits, all asphalt plants have emissions control equipment such as bagfilters or scrubbers. Other options for curbing their emissions include: Limiting production rates or hours of operation. Constructing taller emissions stacks. Increasing the distance between facilities and property lines. Using higher grades of fuel for asphalt heaters. In reviewing permit applications, the DAQ uses computer models to determine whether emissions will exceed state or federal air quality standards. These computer models, which are approved by the EPA, factor in such information as plant emissions rates, production levels, property lines, local terrain, winds and temperatures. The models assume worst- case meteorological conditions - that is, weather conditions that are most likely to cause air pollution problems. What is asphalt and how is it made? Asphalt Plants: Frequently Asked Questions Asphalt is a paving material made from crushed rock and asphalt cement, which is a mixture of petroleum compounds pro- duced by oil refineries. Asphalt plants heat the asphalt cement in enclosed tanks then combine it with crushed rock. The asphalt is then conveyed to storage silos, where it is loaded onto trucks for delivery to construc- tion sites for highways, parking lots and residential areas. How do asphalt plants affect air quality? Air emissions are created at several stages during asphalt production. Most of the emissions come from an asphalt plants main stack. Fumes from asphalt storage and loading areas account for the remaining air emissions, collectively referred to as fugitive emissions. Asphalt production, like any process in which materials are heated or burned, can produce a range of air emissions. Many of these same compounds are emitted by cars and trucks, fireplaces and wood stoves, wildfires, and other industries. While some of these emissions potentially can be un- healthy to breathe, such problems can be prevented by requiring asphalt plants to install controls or take other measures that reduce their emissions of harmful air pol- lutants. That is the guiding principle behind state air quality rules, which set stringent limits for a range of pollutants based on their known health effects. In addition, the Division of Air Quality (DAQ) plans to re-examine its permitting proce- dures pending the results of a nationwide study of asphalt plant emissions being conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If changes are warranted based on the EPA study, the DAQ can reopen asphalt plant permits issued since April 1998. All asphalt plants must obtain an air permit from the Division of Air Quality. The DAQ reviews all air permit applications for compliance with state and federal air quality How does the Division of Air Quality control asphalt plants? CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 5 North Carolina has the second-largest state-maintained highway system in the United States, and it takes a lot of asphalt to pave those roads. The state has about 78,000 miles of roads, with more under construction every year. In addition, roads generally need resurfacing every 12 to 15 years, so about 4,400 miles of roads are repaved each year. Another factor contributing to the number of asphalt plants is the nature of the material. Paving is difficult at lower temperatures, and highway contractors must reject asphalt that is not hot enough (at least 250 degrees). That means asphalt plants must be located fairly close to road construction sites. In reviewing air quality permits for asphalt plants, the Division of Air Quality must ensure that applicants comply with local zoning, and each permit contains a condition stating that the facility must meet these requirements. But the DAQ has no authority over zoning, land use, floodplain development, or where a company decides to build a plant. In North Carolina, local governments are responsible for regulating such land use matters, and they have the final authority over the construction of new facilities through the issuance of building permits. However, many counties and municipalities, particularly in rural areas, have not adopted zoning or land- use controls. The DAQ cannot deny a permit simply because local residents are opposed to a facility; it must base its permitting decisions on whether facilities can meet air quality regulations. The Division of Air Quality lists applications for air quality permits on its web site, http://daq.state.nc.us/. The divisions web site also contains news releases with information about asphalt plants, such as changes in regulations or notifications about upcoming public hearings. For more information about asphalt plants or permit applications, contact the divisions applicable regional office: sedimentation control permits, which are required if plant construction disturbs more than one acre of land. Most asphalt plants do not require sedimentation control permits. There are no state rules that restrict asphalt plants from locating in floodplains, although some local governments may not allow it. How can I find out more about asphalt plants? Who controls where asphalt plants are located? Why are there are so many asphalt plants? Asheville Regional Office 59 Woodfin Place Asheville, NC 28801 (828) 251-6208 Fayetteville Regional Office 225 Green St. Suite 714 Fayetteville, NC 28301 (910) 486-1541 Mooresville Regional Office 919 North Main St. Mooresville, NC 28202 (704) 663-1699 Raleigh Regional Office 3800 Barrett Dr. Raleigh, NC 27611 (919) 571-4700 Washington Regional Office 943 Washington Square Mall Washington, NC 27889 (252) 946-6481 Wilmington Regional Office 127 Cardinal Dr. Extension Wilmington, NC 28405 (910) 395-3900 Winston-Salem Regional Office 585 Waughtown St. Winston-Salem, NC 27107 (336) 771-4600 North Carolinas air quality regulations are designed to protect public health. In addition, North Carolina has one of the more stringent state programs for regulating emissions of air toxics. The N.C. Environmental Management Commission adopted the states air toxics rules in 1990, based on the recommendations of a panel of scientists and health experts who spent more than five years developing a list of air pollutants most likely to pose health risks. The air toxics rules set limits for 105 pollutants that are known to pose either short or long- term hazards for people who breathe them. Under these rules, facilities are not allowed to emit pollutants that exceed any of the air toxics limits at or beyond their property lines. Thus, citizens living near plants that meet the air toxics rules should not be exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution. Asphalt plants may need a stormwater discharge permit from the Division of Water Quality, depending on where they are located and how they operate. Generally, a facility needs a stormwater permit if it collects rainwater from its site and discharges that runoff into a stream or lake. Many asphalt plants, however, do not discharge their runoff into water bodies and do not need storm water permits. Asphalt plants also may need to obtain How does the Division of Water Quality control asphalt plants? Is it safe to live near an asphalt plant?CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 6 13 ASPARACINE. See Amino acids. ASPARTIC ACID. See Amino acids. ASPHALT Asphalt is a dark brown to black cementitious material in which the predominating constituents are bitumens that occur in nature or are ohtainedin petroleum processing. Asphalts characteristically contain very high molecular weight hydrocarbons called asphaltens and are essentially soluhle in carbon disulfide, and aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Bitumen is a generic term for a class of black or dark-col- ored (solid, semisolid, or viscous) cementitious substances, natural or manufactured, composed principally of high molecular weight hydro- carbons, of which asphalts, tars, pitches, and asphaltites are typical. Prior to 1907, most of the asphalt used occurred naturally and in- cluded native a~phalts, rock asphalts, and lake asphalts. Since the early 1900s, however, most asphalts have been produced from the refining of petroleum and uned primarily in paving and roofing applications. Unlike native asphalts, petroleum asphalts are organic with only trace amounts of inorganic materials. At normal service temperatures, asphalt is viscoelastic; at higher temperatures, it hecomes viscous. The disperse phase is a micelle of asohaltenes and the hiaher molecular weight aromatic components of the petrolenes. Determination of the components of asphalts has always nraented a challenge because of the complexity and high molecular ~ ~ weights of the hydrocarbons present. The component of highest carbon content is the fraction tenned carboids, which is insoluble in carbon disulfide. This fraction, although organic, is nonasphaltic. The so-called carhenes are insoluble in carbon tetrachloride and soluble in carbon disulfide. Both carboids and carbenes, if present, occur in small amounts. Asphaltenes have a great influence on the viscosity of asphalt. They seem to be relatively constant in composition in residual asphalts, despite the source, as determined by carbon-hydrogen analysis. The nonasphaltene components of asphalt are called maltenes or petrolenes. Properties of asphalts appear in Tahle 1. Asphalts are used 8s protective films, adhwves, and binders because of their waterproof and weather~resistant properties. Some movement without fracture can occur because of their viscous (sol) nature. They have long and continuous satisfactory service because of their slow rate of hardening from heat, oxidation, fatiye, and weathering. Gposed asphalt films harden partially from a loss of volatile oils and to a greater extent from the formation of additional asphaltene fractions and loss of rnaltenes through oxidation. Such chemical change undoubtedly is cata- lyzed by uv irradiation. lkent studies have indicated that a~phalt stiffness can he used in optimizing performance, although fundmental measures of mechanical properties are preferable. A stiffer asphalt, under uniform loading conditions, could reduce pavement deflection, extend fatigue life, and allow less flow deformation. A softer material would normally allow a longer weathering life before the maltene-asphaltene composition becomes critical in service. Usually, the softest material allowed by initial service needs is selected. The water resistance of asphalt films is also a manifestation of durability. Asphalts that have a low content of soluble salts show a low water absorption. The pickup of water is primarily a surface manifesta- tion; it softens the film and can cause blistering. Even with a high rate of absorption, asphalt films show little loss of bond to surfaces on con- tinued immersion in water and continue to protect metals from corrosion for long periods of time. Bacteria and fungi can attack the very low molecular weight portion of bituminous materials. Mineral fillers often are added to asphalts to influence their flow properties and reduce costs. They are used commonly as stabilizers in roofing coatings at concentrations up to M) wt%. Mineral-filled films show improved resistance to flow at elevated temperatures, improved impact resistance, and better flame-spread resistance. Fillers may in- crease the water absorption of asphalts. Mineral fillers commonly used are ground limestone, slate flours, finely divided silicas, trap rocks, and mica; they often are produced as byproducts in rock-crushing opera- tions. Opaque fillers offer protection from weathering. Asbestos filler has special properties because of its fibrous structure, high resistance to flow, and toughness. It has heen used in asphalt paving mixes to increase the Table 1. Properties of Asphalts Straight- reduced, Air~blown Property residual Thermal reudual softening point (ring and ball), "C penetration of 100 gat 25-C for 5 s, mm/lO ductility at 25T, 5 m/min, cm specific gravity, 15.6/15.6'C mean coefficient of cubical e~pansion/~C 15.6-65.6DC 15.6-232-C specific heat, J/(kg-Kjn 4.4% 93.3% 204.4-C thermal conductivity at 26.7'C. W/(m-K) pemeabiaty at Z~~C, kg-m/(m2.s-~a)b water vapor oxygen wsterahrption of 10-mil films OD nlumi-rurn panels, wt% 50 weeks 1W weeks surfare tension, mN/m (= dyn/m) 25-C 100°C dielectric strength, sphenc~l rletrodes, V/m dielectric constant, 50 Hz at 20°C -To convert J to cd, divide by 4.181. bTo convert Pa to mm Hg, multiply by 0.0075. too hard 1.12 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 7 138 ASPHALT resistance to movement under traffic and in roofing materials for fire- retardant purposes (see Fillers). Petroleum-derived asphalt, which represents > 99% of total a7phalt and asphalt products sold in the United States, is manufactured by the following methods: Straight reduction. Crude oil at 340-400°C is injected into a frac- tionating column. The lighter fractions are separated ac overhead prod- ucts, and the residuum is straightreduced asphalt. Crude oil containing ca 30% or more of asphalt can be refined completely in an atmospheric unit to an asphalt cement product. However, most crude ail cannot he distilled at atmospheric pressure because of high percentages of high boiling fractions. As a supplement to the atmospheric process, a second fractionating tower (a vacuum tower) is added. This two-stage process is particularly applicable to crude oils containing 18-30s asphalt. Straight-reduced asphalts are used mainly in pavements, where they serve primarily as binders in paving mixes. The most important recent technical innovation in asphalt paving has been to use a~phalt throughout the entire pavement structure (termed total asphalt) to provide more efficient and economical distribution of traffic stress*? to the suhgrade and provide better protection of the base from intrusion of outside materials, eg, water, soil, etc. Air-blowing. Asphalt stock (flux) is converted to a harder product by air contact at 200-275'C. Air~blown asphalts are generally more re- sistant to weather and changes in temperature than straight-reduced asphalts and are produced by hatch and continuous methods. Air-blown asphalts of diverse viscosities and flow properties with added fillers, polymers, solvents, and in water emulsions provide products for many applications in roofing and other industries. Air~hlowing is also used to produce the harder paving-asphalt grades when the crudes available have a low asphalt content and cannot be reduced directly to grade. Pcopane deasphalting involves the precipitation of asphalt from a residuum stock by treatment with propane under controlled conditions. The petroleum stock is usually atmospheric-reduced residue from a primary distillation tower. Propane usually is used in this process although propane-butane mixtures and pentane have been used with some variation in process conditions and hardness of the product. Propane deasphalting is used primarily for crude oils of relatively low asphalt content, generally 5 12%. kiphalt produced from this process is blended with other asphaltic residua for making paving asphalt. Thermal asphalts differ from other asphalts in that they are products of a cracking process. They have relatively high specific gravity, low viscosity, and high temperature susceptibility, and they contain cokelike bodies (carbenes) as indicated by the spot test. Themal asphalts are used principally as saturants for cellulosic building products such as insulation boards, hriek-finish siding, and fiber soil piw. Currently, their use in road asphalts is rare. Thermal as~halt actually is in very short supply because of changes in cracking methods, and there is little likelihood that it will ever become commonly available. Blended asphalts may be produced when a refinery stocks two grades of asphalt, one at each end of the viscosity spectrum of the entire product grade requirements. Intermediate grades are prepared by blend- ing (proportioning) the extremes. Emulsions are immiscible liquids dispersed in one another in the form of very fine droplets from ca 1-25 em and an average of 5 pm dia. In the n~ost common asphalt emulsion, ie, the oil~in~water type, the asphalt is the dispersed (internal) phase, and water is the continuous (external) phase (see Emulsion%). Colloid mills are most commonly used for the manufacture of road emulsions in the United States. A colloid mill usually consists of a rapidly revolving conical disk (rotor). The aqphalt, water, and emulsifying agent are forced through the narrow clearance between the rotor and the stator (stationary section). Industrial emulsions have applications outside the road-building in- dustry. They are made with harder grades of a5phalt and contain clays, cssein, gelatin, or blwd alhumin as peptizing agents. Certain clays, such as bentonite, are good emulsion dispersants and impart a buttery con^ sistency to the emulsion. These emulsions have a wide variety of applica~ tions, such as in surface coating of asphalt pavements, for built~up roofs, and for other weather coverings. The large demands for asphalt as a building mate"al were created primarily by maqs production of the automobile and the development of asphalt roofing materials (qv) for home construction. The usc of asphalt in pavement base-course construction (instead of untreated aggregates), hydraulics, rapid growth in home construction, and the interstate road system have greatly increased its use. In recent years, the paving market has consumed ca RO% of the product. Asphalt ha3 been used to surface 94% of the United States' highways. The roofing industry typically has accounted for ca 15% of the asphalt market, and miscellaneous industrial asphalts make up the remaining 5%. These products usually are classified only by types (Bureau of Mines), eg, liquid, solid, emulsion; or by use, eg, laminates, pipe coating, automotive asphalts, etc. The petroleum industry can produce larger quantities of asphalt by adjusting the use of the residual product from refining processes. The integrated refineries have alternative uses for erude-oil residua, ie, coke and residual fuel oil. Very recently, technology improvements have allowed the use of crude residua in existing catalytic cracking units which, in the absence of sufficient distillates normally used for this purpose, places a high alternative value on residua without the atten- dant need for capital to expand coking facilities. The value of residua for coking and residual fuel establishc? a basis for asphalt prices. Asphalt is the preferred product from high sulfur crude stocks because it is a cwrstruction material and does not require desulfurization for use as a fuel. Asphalt yields from three crudes are shown in Figure 1. No significant air~pollution problems are associated with emissions from hot paving operations using several asphalt cements. Concentra~ tions of gaseous substances and emissions from paving-asphalt cement have been found to be very low and within existing EPA and OSHA standards, even when the ambient air sampling way done under confined conditions. Asphalt's very minor content of high molecular weight poly- nuclear aromatic constituents, however, has been studied as a poseble health hazard. The conclusion from these studies suggests that unlike tars, asphalt can he classified in the same manner particulate dust, but surveillance should be continued although asphalt ha? not been shown to he a material of significant hazard. Steps to minimize potential safety hazards in the handling of asphalt are set forth by the American Petroleum Institute and the Asphalt Institute. Hazards include sudden pressme increases from hot asphalt in contact with moisture in enclosed tanks or transports, exposure to air at Yield 01, crude "0, m, Figure 1. Asphalt yield from three crudes. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 8 2 150°C, local overheating above heating coils, flashing of asphalt volatiles in the presence of w ignition murce or possible auto-ignition, and hydrogen sulfide from high temperature operations. JAMES V. EVANS Anloco Oil Co. H. Abraham, Asphalt* andAUtedSnbstance, 6th ed., Vol. 1, U. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N.J., 1960, Chapt. 2. R.N. Traxler, A.s~holt, Heinhold Publishing Carp., New York, 1961. A Brief Inh.oduction to Asphalt and Some o/ I& U.ses, Manual Series No. 5, The Asphalt Institute, College Park, Md., 1975. A.J. Hotberg, Bituminous Mokrwls: Asphaih, Tars, and I?tch~._\, VOIS. 1, 2, and 3, lnterscier~ce Publishers, a division of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 1'364-1966. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 9 ... .... . . . . . . ....... :,.. ../ ....... _: .. ... I.!. . . ..: .:.. ,, ........"......... : ,, .....:........ ... A. ,: : ,:. ; .:.;'.:;.::?:;.! .: :'...::',. .'--. ............. ..,...~.. ..... ." . . ..' ..'.<.. ,. " ' ' -.-. . . ... ., ; .,.: . ., -, ........... .... ....... :. . : .. :. .'. .'. ... , .. . . . . . . ... .... .:.. .. . .. .. .I. -. I,' .... ... ... . . , :. ' .,.., :.; .- ;.:; '--. .:.,',! ,;:. : ... .: , ... ....... ...,....... .. , .~ ~.,. ' ._ ..<. I :.i .- ... ... .. :..,.a- .'.'::..;'.:... ;.;, :,.: ........ ... .... . .. .......... .... ...L:..::...::*;,.<;* -,.,.- !.;.;;-..:.;;i .... :.. ... - :.. . . I. . .; ;. .. - ...... ...... . . ..: .. .?, :, .. ,:.. .:, ........ ..... - L: . . 8. ........ . .... .., . : ...... ;' ,:' ASPHd~ pLA~T EMISSIO&S: j::,i,j:;;,?:k"o"n ifl'iKc tndc~is,~bluc.smokc",' . . Bedus{ th&c condens& : ... : - ... ; ... :;.. , . ;::. :... .... ... ..... :r .;, : ;' ... ..........: .... .. ..:, o&~ni= ric in thc foki ofiub~icrbn'~nidn. theydon't wttlc . . ........;. : ... WWT -.THE. ISSU'S DURING SITE ..'.;;-:_: lik;.dusi priici= ind will ;rJvcl disrlnca before .... ..: .... ...... .. ..... . .- . .... .. . . . . ... ..- .... : . ASSIGNMENT? ': : ... ..: ... . . ........ . . conccnintion,ka~~s . . roo lov'for . . rhcm ro bevisible Horvvcr. ....... < ....... ,. .-. ...... .!'! :.. the cha~crcrisric odor bf irf~lt wt.. rwal their prcwncc, The ... .. . ... ..... :- : : &v Rni ;Ur~lk,rrtri : :. .. ,.. . .: . ! :... . . . .. Gty'of &st& bard of ~althmd Hospitals has collecrcd :, .... : .. :Air Emisrion& &issions of pollutznts to'thc iir comc from tw6 '.; ......:.... ...... . mformition.:fmm'inanj. citia and ;owns about asphalt phna. . - ,. . ;... .: . vpcs qi sourcn:. rhc vlAdus'stacks in th; planrid fium othcr . . ,.-. . !' They find that comphints abut odor. indiuting the pracncc of . mlcchneo;ls sou&. whidh arc cillcd fugrivc kirsions. At a:.; .... . . ... . .- ...... < ._. .I. . . . . ......... + rh&i.oltili;;d organics; havcbe;n rccbrdedar disuncn as hr z .. --.a : . -.: ~s+hzlr pl"r,inco&ing itone ind gnv;l a6 dridin 1 fucl-fired ':., , . . , , . . . .,:..::: ,<.. . . _ .........:. >,: .,,<., .. ' ' a. miIe 'from. iiphalt pints iniiiuiing ~hc disrancc chat ihcse. ,,", diim.(which uses natural gas and/orfuel oi1)'lnd then mixed arith :. ........... ; ....... .... .: . . . . ..:... ."crhiisidns tnvcl.. The concern about thcsc oig~nic crnission~ is , . ,: .. . . .... .. . : hated liquid asptdlt.The'&ci frdm ;he drycr, the'mixcr, and-..; -, - : . ... :two fold. ne light& YOG lad to smog. Morc imporiant. the ........ ;:,'-..;';;:. ;: 'from'mrious pieco bf &Closed cquipmcnt arc:ilAned ih ...... a fib+': .b :: , ... ..,: - ...... .:.,. cawcr.;. crmsslons "mnuin si'gnifiant ' concenrndons of . : ..I.:;: .;(filter (like alargc~urbdancr bag) mdsent to the minsudi:,;: . . ;.. 5.; +.. ... . . ':: ~~.pol~~d~r:.~ormtic~ compounds. khich uuse anccr and , ' .... ;,' '" .Th; nniAons frbiihii sick include gases. iuih Is ni&grn. ;, . . . . ... . -... ... - muutioni. Wnfo+rucely, the EPA and~~~have rouuy ignored . . :-:. ..;..;. . : oxidq urb"di6iide u;d sulfur dioxide dhich result from fuc!. :;;. ...... .... . .,~:. . . .... :.: .fugitive emissions until now. .%s:ir'unfonumrc sincc thcsc' . ' ' : . ... . ,, : . comb&tion:- In addition, ihey conuin vrriok hydrwrbdrh i ;.- . .>.. ,..:;: .- . . ... ... .- h! itii.~.~mb&ddd'hy+&~, VOQ reguhtcd ~s ozone : .:r. ...... ; :. . ::: . which arc eichc+'uhburnt fucl oi vohtilizcd o?g&i; t'om@unds':I.. g .. .: :.. - ..... L. ..: : ..... ....... .:.....+&so 5.ahd parc~cu tc co~denscd 'organics which contain .. ..... ; .. , .. which come from the hbt a'sphalr ~~~hdt'i~. a -due frdm .... . , -.,. !. ..,;..,;..<.. . . . . .:. .. . ,. : tmmm&usihg chkid. ihich should k rcguhtcd but arc not. ~crm!&m rcfiii;;$ ':ile'i! i, a solid it ?wm'r&i+rurci It rs:i - . , ... .... . _._ i: pm h;;r h:a,&ifihnr iffori dm.&cd to quanrii;ution of ..... ........ 8 .... .% a &try, low-viscosiry liqriid.zrthe opzzting temp&nrk.o. . . .......... . . . .: the* fugiri;c &nisi& by conccmed $rizcns. Thc EPA 2nd . . .:.around 3W to 350' dcgrcn F.This asphalt is ttorcd.in ;hard .... . . . . .. , .DEP ;re king rclunintly dragged into ic=~ing the facr that . ,I . 'm.k which has its o6m suck for ;he hurcr (which bums fuel tb ; . . . . ... . thcv missions an't and should not h ignored .... :. .... har the asphalt) and =Ant to ~~owas~hll<va~rs to dupe when ... .... ..... , .: .: .. :. , ,:, ... .... . - thc tank is being fill& Stack emissions contain vi"o& 'crit~ria'- ,: . ' ... : An rrptulr p&t is of& assodatd ;&'a q&y 2nd 2 screening . . :.. poUu&ts which aic reguLtcd under the Utan Air Acr.::;Thcv; ::. - .... .. . .plait for--hcdstdne 2nd &eL Thcsc plants gcnmre a lor of . . ..... : . :.* . ". include sulfur dioiidr, nitrogen. and &i&~t&.:..~hi<, .;d .. .... ... us^. E- bhd& ;dFccnt +rry is ahscnt, the mshcd sronc .: . :'::j:: ;. ;: :.;enre ' is that xlck :'eksrioA< ~rr.''&~.;'~~~crtj.:.by.: ind g&ei,is.:&;;;d in.thi grnmics +nd-bomc , . ,:. !' .: . . . hb~chdwrn &rrmcnt of Envirdnmmr~~ Protccrioh d"ring ': . - .... ........ ... ... While .&it.idntr{l,js cq in 'principls~th chi use of aatcr the review of rhc Air Pcrmit ~ppliution. tion on ally. th{ .=me is.. :; .......... , , .. ..... . . ... . . . sprays tp m-s ;iu gcnmtibn,, it b nrcly implcmcnred ... morc6r IES iruc,iincc ill sutcs opcnic in a similar faihion with ............... .... .... . .pm&.!irrr. rhm aan &0"6&i;inciixive npt to be gcncrous '. .... .... : . ..; &om [he EPA,,' ..'.... .. .. ..........:. - .- .... . . .... . , ....... :...... .... ;..... .. t ,, , , . . :, , .. : :.wichJh;;+rcr spnyi; aha all chis M& h& ro Sc puich~sed and ......... , : ..... ........: ......... ; ....... : .< ...~............. ... .... .'. .. .;. ....... ... . ............ .. ... ., <h;n.i; &td:&.&pdntcd. h'chc dq&lsing purchased fossil ...... .: .... ... . :. ...... :,,. <,:::Fu~itiie c&is*ions. Thex un&ncrolled nrussio~:ofr~ac~~ .... rY1*! . .,. . . . .... . . ,:.. . ._ . , . .clot of jhe'dusr:i~ grnmtid by the truck traffic ', ...... ....... .. .. ... . ..: .;. :;ground iwcl, from eqbipmcki jich is ........... hbc iiphib'stongc silo% 6: ; .,.I.r,., :... .* I . . .. . . - ,'Lsocurcd wick !he zsplulr$I&i'ih&d; apny. Much of thii . . ; ::, . . :./. . ..: ;,:::..::mnvcyors .- .. dr,.from ..miscciLncous'.dpnings+ &gmy::,. ........... .?. . ., : .: .... ,.. .............. . ? '&t +&'d+lrcdbr;.~ljii>&& Gd &&'l;nd ii no l,mgcr . . ' ........ ... ..,;..;....., .,emissidris:&.o &&r, %.... during mutine opmtiom-:Gihh'l,ihc:..l,., .. ..x .. ii. . ... ...:, ::, : ...,.... ........ ... -.~n:.;hc:~linr propert2.;;althb~h.h.dorigi&t;d on the phnt : ? .- .:. - ..; . ,;. ':!p&& bf vb;&ng h~t!&.~~.i~c~t~C!& ~sphdi &&IN..; .,:.;, . ....... . ._ .: i . . . . . ,.. - :.,,(. .,: ....... . . ..?::pro&:. ~l~h&~h !srge.miunrr of m& dust lads to .- ' . :':.' .-I :~wid~wj+'~f ligt;t.zid h'&~hYdrohrbo&dcridfr&.rhc'~ - .. . .....:.......... .........:. ..:* ... .: .......... ... ...... r .......... :.':.~L&is ~~~~kmm~dghborrartgmc.ly.nocu~icd to' .:' .: ................ : :.. :-:i :?":'prcc&iog of . +&olai&'critda: ,, ............. .Ar.thi ?pang f=my.yNr%;$h:l,7 : ::. . _ ,., . , . ... , :... ... ujc[a+jigr &c~t..&E.xotn'cs z,scri&s &&lm. bther, it is . .' ... I':..:.::.'~.:.':::. .... .~.~~thc~lightci..~mpbnrnd:c;lPO~te from rhe.l';luid~~d,~~~~;II~.~., ... , ....... + ........ .... . . ... : .::, .fu ..... ...... . ..... .... . :.. ..:.jr~nfiislrr;e-and a-rmjt ibrcijof iomplainu:. ~:..... . . . -. .... g~t~vc ,misiio&.of hydiohrbons: ,.Th%.~arc.~.ud:im@r:::.. .. : ... ..;.-. ;.. :-, ..... , . : :: - ...... . . ......... *... ........ , ... I.x:' ..... . . ............ .:.. ... : ' -. <. . .: ......_.. ,:. a ,: :,:, ,:.. :::accgoi;L:Thc k~ipl;.ein;;sions kl+~ nan-condens;blcl:~~;;~i~~;:~:,:,: !:.';..:.' 2.. .%. :' .;. . ."i .*;:. , :::l:. -. : . : .; ......:. . . .. .... .... .: ..~,.~&~ssrons~tb Wiit; ~k~h0cnux'isphair ii prduccd'by.a - ........ .:.: ~Vohtilc~~~&c~mpou;i+ (~~~~h;ch&n~rib;~~idsni~;~ .., -..... .. . .... .... - L- ', ..<....'.. :.. ... . . . o.,- .......... ..,,~ouu~ dypiotmiC;it; nor&~y.;oatcd with a 'rela;. ... ;:' ,.:. . ,> ........:. ; -: :. -1 EPA march hii';;.jhci.;hat that$&;& rt;ciir30/.,of.&ci.::. ..: .;.: .A:.' ...... .., . ..= .... ..; .... i.-.. -,,, ....... ........ ......... :.: . .....ig~ ~fo $&c:ih&'&ihlli:fmm,suckirig to the rruck bod?.. : \'; . . ,. ..... ......................... ....... . . ... : toul hy&~&r;;:r~ti;~~"~&~ . . ~c.;;ccon&ur*oly~&n;dti;~2.. . :. . , ;:, ............. i.. ...... ..... .......... ;. ., ,...: wk.&;ih<= ft&ki& zj &mene hi4'E;ccn used ; relase.. .. ' . . ... ... :. .: .:: ;:: .~h~v~&hyd~r~&t~~&+~c~trhcopmr~i~cmpc~~r~~:j .: . :-.. . ,:.. ....... .,. a ..... ... .:.. ......... .... .- ...... .......... .... ;. .:;y.ag.&r.s, ~: th= pi;i.thc cu~ piicii* is to "s; t warcr+rd- ' .. - . . ... .. ,:: _:,,: :i.,~fa~~urid,3'~dcgrm Fbur thdtondcn&&ih&lchambtcnr.,- .... !.... ....:. - ; ..--: ..: .., .-..... .... : . .: . ....... .- :.wl&~,:agmt: +Cd.Pdyilip~ . _ ,~hihis'~bly~~i~. foam is applied , . :.':':.'?.':. . . :'..::';. .Jr., ,Th&e =bnd=hicd drgini& cdmpo~itids,zr~visiblc ind .re.:;. .. ...:, .... , ... .;. .,.~.:..-- .. .. ... , .:, . . .<.. ...*. ,..... :>.y.:~ ,,.,,. *+:; :. .. ..;.,. !.. ..:.,...:. :-.:,.::: .. . 1 :.. ....... . %. . . .._ ..: . .. .......................: . 7:.,.: .; ..:,,,.,. :. %.,, ..; ..-.-.. ;:,.,. :.. .:. .bF.-,,:. ';. :;. ..*..: ;..;* ._&..). ,- .". .. .. .............. ..... ...... .... .. .. ...: ........ ,, ...... ............. .. . : ,-.:;.., : .... ,_ i.. .(:;..:..:'b'.: :. .I... ".; \ ..>; ;. ...... ::.:. :.: >;:. .:,.: ,.: z:::... .... ..... . . .. .. ,* ,,,sc.z; ..< :, ;.:, ;;:.. ,.;; :::,,:<.., i'*,$" :.,;,: ,:>; <;<;,., !,:,.<'.'.?'.. .; ::: .:>., ': ....... , :,,.., . ,~.. .. .;.. ..... .>>?, .......... <., .. .,:.. ... >:::::,: 2,.<...,5~.!.~,.~ .,?.. ;:.-<'..?.>:..:. .2..- ;.,:~.::c.> .#?,.. ?> >ez;;, \ >,?.,. ,,~ ,..*p<.2<*.. -,,. .A .:.::~:,; >: :,,, .;r:y 3 .;;;, .:.?...<?:. ...... : . - .... .. :.. ......... .,>., ........... .<..f :, " .."....~.-...'....~~..>4,. ..... ? .,;,., ..,:. . j; ..... .....:. ,,,; .,,x. ........... .:... ., .... ; ..::;:.~,;,i'"..::.. :; ; ' "2 t..~.. .;; -,.L .:, .:. :: :...,.?>.: ;>< >,.,. ..,,>: ,< ;,;:,,;. T.5;. :,>; :;,::: <. .. 2:: . .: ;, <.,::.A*., .. r.:,y. .. .,>,$;:.:;$; ...*-...:::::.'.-...- .".". '. .... ,,,\,. .. :- :;;> ,::;:?;rp;. .. ;->.; .:,....'-.<:~i:.>.-:,;.. :r. .... 'i.. >;.: ;:j~.:::~ . ... ._.. ... :........ .. ... , :.,:: ::...:;.: .,:; <:> ,.>*r,. < ,r.." ....,..- :..>.!.,:.;.?:.::, -.::+. ,,,:: ..:i:. -: ,-.*,. y:i. ... , .; ,.: !.:.:j. t.::::.<::-<:::::.2>.; . . :I .: . :; . ' ...:..... -5 .. , ....., . 7: .... *..,:, .:: .. : .... : ....... : ... , ......... -. . .. -. .. . . . - - -..,: ..,,,! ;.-,L.<. .... ....... v.5 :::, :.>..<.;. ::..,!:;> . ':. '.; .>,G :: .';.: :'!; ,A,?. ;:<':.::,;,i?S.:::" .:.:(.:x.:.> .......... .... ...:.;.: .>..: :::,:.:-~:..,::~,~:-.~;: -;...:.. :;:..,,; ,,: .. ... . . .............. .......... ... : '..'.. . .~.':.""~'"'.- ..'."" -' :.: :, .; > .-.. .: :... , .::.. , ... :,. ...... , .;:::: !! .... :; , .. '.,,..< :..;:.<:.:.::::~::: . ; ...... .............. :.; ; , ;........ ............. ;.. :: ........ - _,-. .-.: . ,...... . . .......... . ... ,...:.,. .: ..>;>>;...!..!: <.y.< . .. ,. ., , ....... ... ....,... ;...... : ..,>.. C'.-i.:.~.:.':,",:~.--~~',.',..' 2 .-. . :., ,;.. .., -:.. ; , .. ,. ,, , > -4.. ",.<.!.:..-.~ .<!;':' .., -,:; ;;,:;.; .:... . . . . .... .......... :..... .r :.,;..:: >+..:.'.'.;;r. .. .A;. ., . . ,, ,..'.,;. ". '. . . . .[ ...... ; ,.(. ::r.'f,;,?.';.".. , . .: ,.., ';':,,,',: ,:.< , ;. ,, 7 .. . -: .:' .... ' ;.::'.. . : . .r.. ::, . ,,:~,: ......" . : :.. :. ..:. : .... 7 ... , ..: ........... . . %. . ..I. +:,.-.-. ,.,.,. ,>;; :;.. . >.', ....... ...... \.: . ; :,: :.., .... . . . . . CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 10 . . . . . . .. .' . . ,. ., . . ... .. . . . . .. . - .. . . gm+~i? to truck body bv C~C~NC~ .. dn'~=.~d . C~C cxccss . drips to che ground is is carried into ground war= by "in or . . . . . . .. .. . runoff: . '. .. . . .. .:. . . . : ... _. .. '. ... . : . .. . . . . . . Polyslip ionuins a .mixcu~:6f rynrhctk dcccrghu such = , ... s&& kcusiliare and sodium c~polyphosphzrc The orha ' . .. ;;;I . .L". i "r >. . ,. , . , . L, .I%J.,, . , - -.. . . . . .. componAh arc buroxyc~b~~md . .... ddVi &.c rulforur.c,.: ~iese' chemical arc poisons. ' Thg toxic dose '&&&.on. onl , . ingestion by mice. rats and nbbirr, is about I gnm pcr kilogram of body weight. Foi hurmns this amcc toxic dosc rnnslares ro . . abour 1 ounce ior an adult.. CcncnUy, lace toxicicy will nor bc m Lsuc. Howcver. at much lower conccntracions md chronic mpsurq butoxyechmol is a tcntogcn (causes binh dci-) adz muughin its esrcr form. WC~IUVC wtn such hb~ities sired 5: nar supplies of drinking warm orn& a -berry bog, in one 9 cn instance. ThcaspMr plants gA+ &U these mt+& -i soap. > rolurion approved by DEP' anddismiss thc issue of hczith cffecrr. be&usc these chcmiuls am supposedly bi~dzble Baar&.of z Halrh need to pay more artcnrion to chi arm, especially whcn' C therc is prcnii for concaminacion of drinking m:er suPPEcs m m 4 Solid Wastes: A hot mix plant docr not producc solid wasra but 4 V, ir often canconsumc solid md hazardous wastes such as Ryded - Asphalt Pavcmcnt (RAP) and soil conuminzrcd wirhoiL RAP is P V, gcncnuy much higher in voltrik compancncs than is che ase V, with new hot mix asphalt so rhc air emissions arc higher when W is king uwb A red conccm is hbw chcse mrcrilL uc srorcd on site md whether the toxic chcmials in these solidr an bc imchcd ;nra ground warcr by rxinflU. Noirc and othcr nuisance issucr: Asphzlr plancs arc noisy bcwuse of rhc truck crafiic. brause of associated quq , o~r2cions snd kausc thc b-~~ncr nn the dycr is also noisy. In addition, if the planr has a concract *+rh Mass Dcprtmcnr oi .Highmys;ir is rcquired to opencc around the clock.regrrdlcss of loul ordinances. Gmphinu from neighbors during such periods indimtc char [he noise from backup alarms on trucks and o;hc mobile cquipmc& is parricuhrly annoying ar nighr. Ovcnk thc conccms about ~phalr plants arc a rcsuic of rhcir emissions to rhc air and mrcr and rhcir propnsiry cq bc sircd nnr residcnri=l arcas mrh minimal buficr zones 2nd in arms such as gravel pits which arc ak0 aquifers znd sources of drinking water. Some stares like Souch lhkoca oniy ~Uow mobile asphalt plants so char a ~znicular neighborhood docs nor have co brmrhe asphalr ~mes for scores of yczrs. Evcn in a pcrroleum-friendly starc like Tcsas, a half milc buffer zone is requircd so ihar an asphalt p!lnr can'r k sired clos:: rh~c h~lf milt iron any I ! residence wiclnour spccizl srxtc environmei:r=l review. r~ i i i I 0 0 i= 4 w to 0 2 Z Q 0 % 2 - I( d m " s u 4 k $$+ 5: 2 M CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 11 United States Office Of Air Quality EPA-454/R-00-019 Environmental Protection Planning And Standards December 2000 Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Air HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTS EMISSION ASSESSMENT REPORT CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 12 ix LIST OF ACRONYMS ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials Btu British thermal unit CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide (as measured by EPA Method 10) CO2 carbon dioxide (as measured by EPA Method 3) EPA Environmental Protection Agency HAP hazardous air pollutant (listed in or pursuant to section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) HMA hot mix asphalt NOx nitrogen oxides (as measured by EPA Method 7) PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (a class of HAPs) PM particulate matter (as measured by EPA Methods 5 or 17) PM-10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM-2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter RAP reclaimed asphalt pavement RTFOT rolling thin film oven test (ASTM Method D2872-88) SCC source classification code SO2 sulfur dioxide (as measured by EPA Methods 6 or 8) SOx sulfur oxides TOC total organic compounds (as measured by EPA Method 25A) VOC volatile organic compound (refer to 40 CFR 51.100); VOC is TOC plus formaldehyde, less methane, ethane, acetone, and other chemicals listed as negligibly photochemically reactive. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 13 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION This report presents an assessment of emissions from hot mix asphalt (HMA) manufacturing facilities. Included in the report is a description of the manufacturing process and the emissions associated with HMA production; the procedures for developing emission factors and emission inventories for the HMA industry; and estimated annual emissions for typical HMA facilities. 1.2 OVERVIEW OF HMA INDUSTRY Hot mix asphalt is used primarily as paving material and consists of a mixture of aggregate and liquid asphalt cement, which are heated and mixed in measured quantities. Hot mix asphalt facilities can be broadly classified as either drum mix plants or batch mix plants, according to the process by which the raw materials are mixed. In a batch mix plant, the aggregate is dried first, then transferred to a mixer where it is mixed with the liquid asphalt. In a drum mix plant, a rotary dryer serves to dry the aggregate and mix it with the liquid asphalt cement. After mixing, the HMA generally is transferred to a storage bin or silo, where it is stored temporarily. From the silo, the HMA is emptied into haul trucks, which transport the material to the job site. Figure 1 presents a diagram of a typical batch mix HMA plant; a typical drum mix HMA plant is depicted in Figure 2. In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2,300 are batch plants, and 1,300 are drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMA production from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively. Based on these figures, an average batch mix plant produces approximately 100,000 tons of HMA annually, and an average drum mix plant produces about 200,000 tons of HMA per year. Natural gas fuel is used to produce 70 to 90 percent of the HMA. The remainder of the HMA is produced using oil, propane, waste oil, or other fuels. The primary emission sources associated with HMA production are the dryers, hot bins, and mixers, which emit particulate matter (PM) and a variety of gaseous pollutants. Other emission sources found at HMA plants include storage silos, which temporarily hold the HMA; truck load-out operations, in which the HMA is loaded into trucks for hauling to the job site; liquid asphalt storage tanks; hot oil heaters, which are used to heat the asphalt storage tanks; and yard emissions, which consist of fugitive emissions from the HMA in truck beds. Emissions also result from vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate storage and handling operations, and vehicle exhaust. The PM emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants PM-10 (PM less than 10 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter) and PM-2.5, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals, and HAP organic compounds. The gaseous emissions associated with HMA production include the criteria pollutants sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOC), as well as volatile HAP organic compounds. 1.3 DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR HMA FACILITIES An emission factor relates the quantity (weight) of pollutants emitted to a unit of activity of the source. Emission factors for the HMA industry are generally determined in units of pounds of pollutant emitted per ton of HMA produced. These emission factors typically are used to estimate area-wide CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 14 2 emissions for a large number of facilities and emissions for specific facilities where source-specific emissions data are not available or where source testing is cost prohibitive. To develop emission factors for the HMA industry, data from more than 390 emission test reports and other documents on the industry were compiled and reviewed. Through a careful screening process, the documents that were determined to be unusable for emission factor development were excluded from further evaluation. The remaining reports were compiled by plant type, emission source, pollutant, and emission control. For each emission test, emission factors were calculated by dividing the measured emission rates by the HMA production rate measured at the time of the emission test. These emission factors were then grouped by source, pollutant, and control device, and an average emission factor was calculated for each group. Emission factors can be used to estimate emissions from one or more HMA facilities by multiplying the emission factor by the HMA production rate. For example, the emission factor for CO emissions from a natural gas-fired drum mix dryer is 0.13 pounds per ton (lb/ton). If the dryer produces 200,000 tons per year (ton/yr), the estimated CO emissions during that period would be: 200,000 ton/yr × 0.13 lb/ton = 26,000 lb/yr or 13 tons/yr. 1.4 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FROM TYPICAL HMA FACILITIES Annual emissions for a facility can be estimated by summing up the emissions from each emission source over the course of a year. Annual emissions for a specific source can be estimated by multiplying the annual throughput or production rate for that source by its corresponding emission factors. For an HMA facility, annual emissions can be estimated by multiplying the annual HMA production rate by the emission factors for each type of source at the facility. Table 1 summarizes annual emissions for a typical HMA batch mix plant, and Table 2 summarizes annual emissions for a typical drum mix HMA plant. The estimates presented in these tables account for all of the identified emission sources at each type of facility. For both batch mix plants (Table 1) and drum mix plants (Table 2), the estimate includes emissions from the dryer/mixer, load-out operations, asphalt storage, yard (fugitive emissions from loaded trucks), diesel exhaust, paved and unpaved road dust, and aggregate processing (screening, conveyor transfer, and reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP] crushing). Additionally, for the drum mix plant (Table 2), the estimate includes emissions from silo filling operations. Estimates are presented for criteria pollutants (pollutants for which national ambient air quality standards have been developed) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs, as defined in section 112(b) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments). Criteria pollutants include PM-10, VOC, CO, SO2, and NOx. Emissions for three classes of HAPs are presented in Tables 1 and 2: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic HAPs, and metal HAPs. The emissions were estimated using the emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions: •Dryers are fueled with natural gas or No. 2 fuel oil (estimates are presented for both types). It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas, although some HMA plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas. •Dryer emissions are controlled with fabric filters. •PM emissions from load-out and silo filling are entirely PM-10. •Annual HMA production rate for a typical batch mix plant is 100,000 ton/yr. •Annual HMA production rate for a typical drum mix plant is 200,000 ton/yr. •The typical HMA plant has two 18,000-gallon asphalt storage tanks. As indicated in Table 1, a typical batch mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer emits over 74,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical batch mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits over CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 15 3 56,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 41,000 lb/yr are CO and approximately 10,700 lb/yr are PM-10; emissions of other criteria pollutants range from about 500 to about 12,000 lb/yr. The same plant would emit about 770 lb/yr of HAPs. A typical drum mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer emits about 83,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, and a typical drum mix plant using a natural gas-fired dryer emits around 75,000 lb/yr of criteria pollutants, of which approximately 28,000 lb/yr are CO, about 10,000 lb/yr are VOC, and around 31,000 lb/yr are PM-10. A typical drum mix plant emits from 1,300 to 2,000 lb/yr of HAPs, depending on the fuel used in the dryer. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 16 6TABLE 1. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL BATCH MIX HMA FACILITYa Pollutant Annual emissions by source, pounds per year Mobile sources (diesel exhaust) Material handling and road dust No. 2 fuel oil- fired dryer, hot screens, and mixerb Natural gas- fired dryer, hot screens, and mixerc Load- outd Asphalt Storagee Yardf Totalg (oil- fired) Totalg (gas- fired) Criteria air pollutants Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) 46 7,900 2,700 2,700 52 10,700 10,700 Volatile organic compounds (VOC)100 820 820 391 32 110 1,500 1,500 Carbon monoxide (CO)700 40,000 40,000 135 3 35 41,000 41,000 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)22 8,800 460 8,800 480 Nitrogen oxides (NOx)380 12,000 2,500 12,400 2,900 Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 0.035 11 11 2.0 0.12 13 13 Phenol 0.40 0.40 0.40 Volatile HAPs 1.9 751 751 6.2 140 1.6 760 760 Metal HAPs 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Total HAPsg 1.9 760 760 8.6 140 1.6 770 770 a Based on an annual HMA production rate of 100,000 tons per year. b Between 10 and 30 percent of the HMA is produced using fuel oil. c Between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas. d Loading of HMA into haul trucks. e Includes emissions from oil-fired hot oil heaters. f Fugitive emissions from loaded trucks prior to departure to the job site. g Total expressed using two significant figures. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 17 7TABLE 2. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX HMA FACILITYa Pollutant Annual emissions by source, pounds per year Mobile sources (diesel exhaust) Material handling and road dust No. 2 fuel oil- fired dryerb Natural gas-fired dryerc Load- outd Silo fillinge Asphalt storagef Yardg Totalh (oil- fired) Totalh (gas- fired) Criteria air pollutants Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM-10) 220 26,000 4,600 4,600 104 117 31,000 31,000 Volatile organic compounds (VOC)190 6,400 6,400 782 2,440 64 220 10,000 10,000 Carbon monoxide (CO)1,200 26,000 26,000 270 236 6 72 28,000 28,000 Sulfur dioxide (SO2)26 2,200 680 2,200 710 Nitrogen oxides (NOx)560 11,000 5,200 12,000 5,800 Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) 0.13 176 37 4.0 5.8 0.12 190 50 Phenol 0.80 0.80 0.80 Volatile HAPs 6.6 1,560 1,020 12.4 31 140 3.3 1,800 1,200 Metal HAPs 19 16 19 16 Total HAPsh 6.7 1,800 1,100 17 37 140 3.3 2,000 1,300 a Based on an annual HMA production rate of 200,000 tons per year. b Between 10 and 30 percent of the HMA is produced using fuel oil. c Between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas. d Loading of HMA into haul trucks e Filling of temporary storage silo prior to load-out. f Includes emissions from oil-fired hot oil heaters. g Fugitive emissions from loaded trucks prior to departure to the job site. h Total expressed using two significant figures. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 18 17 The emissions estimates presented in Tables 5 through 12 are based on the emission factors developed for the HMA industry and the following assumptions: •Batch mix plant and drum mix plant dryers are fueled with either natural gas or fuel oil. It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of HMA plants use natural gas, although some HMA plants use fuel oil as an alternative to natural gas. As shown in Tables 5 and 8, fuel oil-fired mixers and dryers have higher emissions of SO2, NOx, and some HAPs. •Batch mix plant dryer, hot screens, and mixer and drum mix plant dryer emissions are controlled with fabric filters. •PM emissions from load-out and silo filling are entirely PM-10. (However, the organic portion of these emissions also can be assumed to be PM-2.5. Information is available in AP-42 Appendix B.1, Particle Size Distribution Data and Sized Emission Factors for Selected Sources, for categorizing the inorganic or filterable PM into PM-10 and PM-2.5 fractions.) •Average asphalt loss on heating is -0.5 percent (asphalt volatility). •Average HMA load-out temperature is 325°F. •The typical HMA plant has two asphalt storage tanks that are 50 feet long and 8 feet in diameter. It is estimated that these storage tanks require a total heating capacity of about 200,000 Btu/hr, based on a heat loss of 60 Btu/ft2 of tank surface area. The asphalt storage tanks are kept at 325°F continuously for the five months the HMA plant operates. As a result, 720 million Btu are used to maintain the temperature of the asphalt in the storage tank. For a gas-fired hot oil heater, 720,000 ft3 of gas is combusted. For an oil-fired hot oil heater, 5,100 gallons of fuel oil are combusted. It should be noted that this fuel usage is about 3 percent of the fuel used in a typical batch mix plant and 1.6 percent of the fuel used in a typical drum mix plant. TABLE 3. MATRIX OF EMISSION FACTORS DEVELOPED FOR HMA SOURCES Plant type Source Criteria pollutants HAPs Other pollutants Batch mix Dryer, hot screens, and mixer PM-10, NOx, CO, SO2, VOC 24 organic HAPs 9 metal HAPs CO24 other organics 3 other metals Hot oil heaters 22 organic HAPs Load-out PM, CO, VOC, 41 organic HAPs 3 other organics Yard emissions VOC 19 organic HAPs Drum mix Dryer PM-10, NOx, CO, SO2, VOC 58 organic HAPs 11 metal HAPs CO215 other organics, 6 other metals Hot oil heaters 22 organic HAPs Load-out PM, CO, VOC 41 organic HAPs 3 other organics Silo filling PM, CO, VOC 28 organic HAPs 3 other organics Yard emissions VOC 19 organic HAPs CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 19 19 TABLE 5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT DRYER, HOT SCREENS, AND MIXERa Pollutant Oil-fired dryer Natural gas-fired dryer Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 2,700 2,700 VOC 820 820 CO 40,000 40,000 SO2 8,800 460 NOx 12,000 2,500 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) Naphthalene 3.6 3.6 2-Methylnaphthalene 7.1 7.1 Acenaphthene 0.090 0.090 Acenaphthylene 0.058 0.058 Anthracene 0.021 0.021 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.00046 0.00046 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.000031 0.000031 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00094 0.00094 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.00005 0.00005 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0013 0.0013 Chrysene 0.00038 0.00038 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.0000095 0.0000095 Fluoranthene 0.016 0.016 Fluorene 0.16 0.16 Indendo(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00003 0.00003 Phenanthrene 0.26 0.26 Pyrene 0.0062 0.0062 Total PAHs 11 11 Volatile HAPs Acetaldehyde 32 32 Benzene 28 28 Ethylbenzene 220 220 Formaldehyde 74 74 Quinone 27 27 Toluene 100 100 Xylene 270 270 Total Volatile HAPs 751 751 Metal HAPs Arsenic 0.046 0.046 Beryllium 0.015 0.015 Cadmium 0.061 0.061 Chromium 0.057 0.057 Lead 0.089 0.089 Manganese 0.69 0.69 Mercury 0.041 0.041 Nickel 0.3 0.3 Selenium 0.049 0.049 Total metal HAPs 1.35 1.35 a Dryer, hot screens, and mixer controlled by fabric filter producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Between 70 and 90 percent of HMA is produced using natural gas; most of the remaining HMA is produced using fuel oil. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 20 20 TABLE 6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT LOAD-OUT OPERATIONSa Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 52 VOC 391 CO 135 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.089 Acenaphthylene 0.0095 Anthracene 0.0239 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.0065 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0026 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.00075 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.00065 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00078 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.0027 Chrysene 0.035 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00013 Fluoranthene 0.017 Fluorene 0.26 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00016 2-Methylnaphthalene 0.81 Naphthalene 0.43 Perylene 0.0075 Phenanthrene 0.28 Pyrene 0.051 Total PAHs 2.02 Other semi-volatile HAPs Phenol 0.40 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.22 Bromomethane 0.040 2-Butanone 0.20 Carbon disulfide 0.054 Chloroethane 0.00087 Chloromethane 0.062 Cumene 0.46 Ethylbenzene 1.16 Formaldehyde 0.37 n-Hexane 0.62 Isooctane 0.0075 Methylene chloride 0.00 Methyl tert-butyl ether 0.00 Styrene 0.030 Tetrachloroethene 0.032 Toluene 0.87 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.00 Trichloroethene 0.00 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.0054 m-/p-Xylene 1.70 o-Xylene 0.33 Total volatile HAPs 6.18 a Uncontrolled emissions from 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 21 21 TABLE 7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX PLANT ASPHALT STORAGE TANKa Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 ND VOC 32 CO 3 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.0027 Acenaphthylene 0.0010 Anthracene 0.00092 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00051 Fluoranthene 0.00022 Fluorene 0.00016 Naphthalene 0.087 Phenanthrene 0.025 Pyrene 0.00016 Total PAHs 0.12 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.010 Bromomethane 0.0016 2-Butanone 0.012 Carbon disulfide 0.0051 Chloroethane 0.0012 Chloromethane 0.0074 Ethylbenzene 0.012 Formaldehyde 140 n-Hexane 0.032 Isooctane 0.000099 Methylene chloride 0.000086 Phenol 0.00 Styrene 0.0017 Toluene 0.020 m-/p-Xylene 0.061 o-Xylene 0.018 Total volatile HAPs 140 a Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Includes emissions from oil-fired hot oil heaters. All calculated PAH emissions and almost all of the formaldehyde emissions are from the oil-fired hot oil heater. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 22 22 TABLE 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR A TYPICAL DRUM MIX DRYERa Pollutant No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer Natural gas-fired dryer Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 4,600 4,600 VOC 6,400 6,400 CO 26,000 26,000 SO2 2,200 680 NOx 11,000 5,200 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) 2-Methylnaphthalene 34 15 Acenaphthene 0.28 0.28 Acenaphthylene 4.4 1.7 Anthracene 0.62 0.044 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.042 0.042 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0020 0.0020 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.020 0.020 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.022 0.022 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0080 0.0080 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0082 0.0082 Chrysene 0.036 0.036 Fluoranthene 0.12 0.12 Fluorene 2.2 0.76 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.0014 0.0014 Naphthalene 130 18 Perylene 0.0018 0.0018 Phenanthrene 4.6 1.5 Pyrene 0.60 0.11 Total PAHs 180 37 Volatile HAPs Isooctane 8.0 8.0 Hexane 184 180 Benzene 78 78 Ethylbenzene 48 48 Formaldehyde 620 620 Methyl chloroform 9.6 9.6 Toluene 580 30 Xylene 40 40 Total volatile HAPs 1,568 1,020 Metal HAPs Lead 3 0.12 Mercury 0.52 0.048 Antimony 0.036 0.036 Arsenic 0.11 0.11 Beryllium 0.000 0.000 Cadmium 0.082 0.082 Chromium 1.1 1.1 Manganese 1.5 1.5 Nickel 12.6 12.6 Selenium 0.070 0.070 Total metal HAPs 19 16 a Dryer controlled by fabric filter producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Between 70 and 90 percent of HMA is produced using natural gas; most of the remaining HMA is produced using fuel oil. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 23 23 TABLE 9. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT LOAD-OUT OPERATIONSa Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 104 VOC 780 CO 270 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.177 Acenaphthylene 0.0191 Anthracene 0.0477 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.013 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.0052 Benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0015 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 0.0013 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.00157 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.0053 Chrysene 0.070 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 0.00025 Fluoranthene 0.034 Fluorene 0.53 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.00032 2-Methylnaphthalene 1.62 Naphthalene 0.85 Perylene 0.015 Phenanthrene 0.55 Pyrene 0.10 Total PAHs 4.05 Other semi-volatile HAPs Phenol 0.80 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.43 Bromomethane 0.080 2-Butanone 0.41 Carbon disulfide 0.11 Chloroethane 0.0017 Chloromethane 0.12 Cumene 0.91 Ethylbenzene 2.3 Formaldehyde 0.73 n-Hexane 1.25 Isooctane 0.015 Methylene chloride 0.00 Methyl tert-butyl ether 0.00 Styrene 0.06 Tetrachloroethene 0.064 Toluene 1.74 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.00 Trichloroethene 0.00 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.011 m-/p-Xylene 3.40 o-Xylene 0.66 Total volatile HAPs 12.35 a Uncontrolled emissions from 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 24 24 TABLE 10. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT SILO FILLING OPERATIONSa Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 120 VOC 2,400 CO 240 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.24 Acenaphthylene 0.0071 Anthracene 0.066 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.028 Benzo(e)pyrene 0.0048 Chrysene 0.11 Fluoranthene 0.076 Fluorene 0.51 2-Methylnaphthalene 2.7 Naphthalene 0.92 Perylene 0.015 Phenanthrene 0.91 Pyrene 0.22 Total PAHs 5.8 Other semi-volatile HAPs Phenol 0.00 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.78 Bromomethane 0.12 2-Butanone 0.95 Carbon disulfide 0.39 Chloroethane 0.095 Chloromethane 0.56 Ethylbenzene 0.93 Formaldehyde 17 n-Hexane 2.4 Isooctane 0.0076 Methylene chloride 0.0066 Styrene 0.13 Toluene 1.5 m-/p-Xylene 4.6 o-Xylene 1.4 Total volatile HAPs 31a Uncontrolled emissions from 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 25 25 TABLE 11. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL DRUM MIX PLANT ASPHALT STORAGE TANKa Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 ND VOC 64 CO 6 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs) Acenaphthene 0.0027 Acenaphthylene 0.0010 Anthracene 0.00092 Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.00051 Fluoranthene 0.00022 Fluorene 0.00016 Naphthalene 0.087 Phenanthrene 0.025 Pyrene 0.00016 Total PAHs 0.12 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.020 Bromomethane 0.0031 2-Butanone 0.025 Carbon disulfide 0.010 Chloroethane 0.0025 Chloromethane 0.015 Ethylbenzene 0.024 Formaldehyde 140 n-Hexane 0.064 Isooctane 0.00020 Methylene chloride 0.00017 Phenol 0.00 Styrene 0.0035 Toluene 0.040 m-/p-Xylene 0.12 o-Xylene 0.036 Total volatile HAPs 140aUncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. Includes emissions from an oil-fired hot oil heater. All of the calculated PAH emissions and almost all of the formaldehyde emissions are from the oil-fired hot oil heater. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 26 26 TABLE 12. ESTIMATED ANNUAL YARD VOC EMISSIONS FOR TYPICAL BATCH MIX AND DRUM MIX HMA PLANTSa Batch mixb Drum mixc Pollutant Emissions, lb/yr Criteria Pollutants PM-10 ND ND VOC 110 220 CO 36 72 PAHs (semi-volatile HAPs)ND ND Other semi-volatile HAPs Phenol 0.00 0.00 Volatile HAPs Benzene 0.057 0.11 Bromomethane 0.011 0.021 2-Butanone 0.054 0.11 Carbon disulfide 0.014 0.029 Chloroethane 0.00023 0.0046 Chloromethane 0.017 0.033 Cumene 0.12 0.24 Ethylbenzene 0.31 0.62 Formaldehyde 0.10 0.19 n-Hexane 0.17 0.33 Isooctane 0.0020 0.0040 Methylene chloride 0.00 0.00 Styrene 0.0080 0.016 Tetrachloroethene 0.0085 0.017 Toluene 0.23 0.46 Trichlorofluoromethane 0.0014 0.0029 m-/p-Xylene 0.45 0.90 o-Xylene 0.088 0.18 Total volatile HAPs 1.6 3.3 a Fugitive VOC emissions from loaded haul truck for eight minutes after completion of load-out.b Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year.c Uncontrolled emissions from plant producing 200,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 27 COMPILATION OF AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS VOLUME I: STATIONARY POINT AND AREA SOURCES Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards Oace Of Air And Radiation U. S. Environmental Wtection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 277 1 1 January 1995 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 28 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-1 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants 11.1.1 General1-3,23, 392-394 Hot mix asphalt (HMA) paving materials are a mixture of size-graded, high quality aggregate(which can include reclaimed asphalt pavement [RAP]), and liquid asphalt cement, which is heated andmixed in measured quantities to produce HMA. Aggregate and RAP (if used) constitute over 92 percent by weight of the total mixture. Aside from the amount and grade of asphalt cement used, mix characteristics are determined by the relative amounts and types of aggregate and RAP used. A certainpercentage of fine aggregate (less than 74 micrometers [µm] in physical diameter) is required for the production of good quality HMA. Hot mix asphalt paving materials can be manufactured by: (1) batch mix plants, (2) continuousmix (mix outside dryer drum) plants, (3) parallel flow drum mix plants, and (4) counterflow drum mix plants. This order of listing generally reflects the chronological order of development and use within the HMA industry. In 1996, approximately 500 million tons of HMA were produced at the 3,600 (estimated) active asphalt plants in the United States. Of these 3,600 plants, approximately 2,300 are batch plants, 1,000 are parallel flow drum mix plants, and 300 are counterflow drum mix plants. The total 1996 HMAproduction from batch and drum mix plants is estimated at about 240 million tons and 260 million tons, respectively. About 85 percent of plants being manufactured today are of the counterflow drum mix design, while batch plants and parallel flow drum mix plants account for 10 percent and 5 percentrespectively. Continuous mix plants represent a very small fraction of the plants in use (#0.5 percent) and, therefore, are not discussed further. An HMA plant can be constructed as a permanent plant, a skid-mounted (easily relocated) plant,or a portable plant. All plants can have RAP processing capabilities. Virtually all plants being manufactured today have RAP processing capability. Most plants have the capability to use either gaseous fuels (natural gas) or fuel oil. However, based upon Department of Energy and limited Stateinventory information, between 70 and 90 percent of the HMA is produced using natural gas as the fuel todry and heat the aggregate. 11.1.1.1 Batch Mix Plants ! Figure 11.1-1 shows the batch mix HMA production process. Raw aggregate normally is stockpiled near the production unit. The bulk aggregate moisture content typically stabilizes between 3 to 5 percent by weight. Processing begins as the aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and is placed in the appropriate hoppers of the cold feed unit. The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyer belt and is transported into a rotary dryer (typically gas- or oil-fired). Dryers are equipped with flightsdesigned to shower the aggregate inside the drum to promote drying efficiency. As the hot aggregate leaves the dryer, it drops into a bucket elevator and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens, where it is classified into as many as four different grades (sizes) and is dropped intoindividual “hot” bins according to size. At newer facilities, RAP also may be transferred to a separate heated storage bin. To control aggregate size distribution in the final batch mix, the operator opens various hot bins over a weigh hopper until the desired mix and weight are obtained. Concurrent with theaggregate being weighed, liquid asphalt cement is pumped from a heated storage tank to an asphalt bucket, where it is weighed to achieve the desired aggregate-to-asphalt cement ratio in the final mix. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 29 11.1-2 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04Figure 11.1-1. General process flow diagram for batch mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).3CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 30 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-3 The aggregate from the weigh hopper is dropped into the mixer (pug mill) and dry-mixed for6 to 10 seconds. The liquid asphalt is then dropped into the pug mill where it is mixed for an additional period of time. At older plants, RAP typically is conveyed directly to the pug mill from storage hoppers and combined with the hot aggregate. Total mixing time usually is less than 60 seconds. Then the hot mix is conveyed to a hot storage silo or is dropped directly into a truck and hauled to the job site. 11.1.1.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants ! Figure 11.1-2 shows the parallel flow drum mix process. This process is a continuous mixingtype process, using proportioning cold feed controls for the process materials. The major differencebetween this process and the batch process is that the dryer is used not only to dry the material but also to mix the heated and dried aggregates with the liquid asphalt cement. Aggregate, which has been proportioned by size gradations, is introduced to the drum at the burner end. As the drum rotates, theaggregates, as well as the combustion products, move toward the other end of the drum in parallel. Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump electronically linked to the new (virgin) aggregate and RAP weigh scales. The asphalt cement is introduced in the mixing zone midway down thedrum in a lower temperature zone, along with any RAP and particulate matter (PM) from collectors. The mixture is discharged at the end of the drum and is conveyed to either a surge bin or HMA storage silos, where it is loaded into transport trucks. The exhaust gases also exit the end of the drum andpass on to the collection system. Parallel flow drum mixers have an advantage, in that mixing in the discharge end of the drum captures a substantial portion of the aggregate dust, therefore lowering the load on the downstream PMcollection equipment. For this reason, most parallel flow drum mixers are followed only by primary collection equipment (usually a baghouse or venturi scrubber). However, because the mixing of aggregate and liquid asphalt cement occurs in the hot combustion product flow, organic emissions(gaseous and liquid aerosol) may be greater than in other asphalt mixing processes. Because data are not available to distinguish significant emissions differences between the two process designs, this effect on emissions cannot be verified. 11.1.1.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants ! Figure 11.1-3 shows a counterflow drum mix plant. In this type of plant, the material flow in the drum is opposite or counterflow to the direction of exhaust gases. In addition, the liquid asphalt cementmixing zone is located behind the burner flame zone so as to remove the materials from direct contactwith hot exhaust gases. Liquid asphalt cement flow is controlled by a variable flow pump which is electronically linkedto the virgin aggregate and RAP weigh scales. It is injected into the mixing zone along with any RAP and particulate matter from primary and secondary collectors. Because the liquid asphalt cement, virgin aggregate, and RAP are mixed in a zone removed fromthe exhaust gas stream, counterflow drum mix plants will likely have organic emissions (gaseous and liquid aerosol) that are lower than parallel flow drum mix plants. However, the available data are insufficient to discern any differences in emissions that result from differences in the two processes. Acounterflow drum mix plant can normally process RAP at ratios up to 50 percent with little or no observed effect upon emissions. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 31 11.1-4 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04Figure 11.1-2. General process flow diagram for parallel-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).3CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 32 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-5Figure 11.1-3. General process flow diagram for counter-flow drum mix asphalt plants (source classification codes in parentheses).3CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 33 11.1-6 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 11.1.1.4 Recycle Processes393 !In recent years, the use of RAP has been initiated in the HMA industry. Reclaimed asphalt pavement significantly reduces the amount of virgin rock and asphalt cement needed to produce HMA. In the reclamation process, old asphalt pavement is removed from the road base. This material isthen transported to the plant, and is crushed and screened to the appropriate size for further processing. The paving material is then heated and mixed with new aggregate (if applicable), and the proper amount of new asphalt cement is added to produce HMA that meets the required quality specifications. 11.1.2 Emissions And Controls2-3,23 Emissions from HMA plants may be divided into ducted production emissions, pre-production fugitive dust emissions, and other production-related fugitive emissions. Pre-production fugitive dustsources associated with HMA plants include vehicular traffic generating fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads, aggregate material handling, and other aggregate processing operations. Fugitive dust may range from 0.1 µm to more than 300 µm in aerodynamic diameter. On average, 5 percent of coldaggregate feed is less than 74 µm (minus 200 mesh). Fugitive dust that may escape collection beforeprimary control generally consists of PM with 50 to 70 percent of the total mass less than 74 µm. Uncontrolled PM emission factors for various types of fugitive sources in HMA plants are addressed in Sections 11.19.2, “Crushed Stone Processing”, 13.2.1, “Paved Roads”, 13.2.2, “Unpaved Roads”, 13.2.3,“Heavy Construction Operations”, and 13.2.4, “Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles.” Production- related fugitive emissions and emissions from ducted production operations are discussed below. Emission points discussed below refer to Figure 11.1-1 for batch mix asphalt plants and to Figures 11.1-2and 11.1-3 for drum mix plants. 11.1.2.1 Batch Mix Plants ! As with most facilities in the mineral products industry, batch mix HMA plants have two majorcategories of emissions: ducted sources (those vented to the atmosphere through some type of stack, vent, or pipe), and fugitive sources (those not confined to ducts and vents but emitted directly from the source to the ambient air). Ducted emissions are usually collected and transported by an industrial ventilation system having one or more fans or air movers, eventually to be emitted to the atmosphere through sometype of stack. Fugitive emissions result from process and open sources and consist of a combination of gaseous pollutants and PM. The most significant ducted source of emissions of most pollutants from batch mix HMA plants is the rotary drum dryer. The dryer emissions consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM; products of combustion (carbon dioxide [CO2], nitrogen oxides [NOx], and sulfur oxides [SOx]); carbon monoxide (CO); and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including volatileorganic compounds [VOC], methane [CH4], and hazardous air pollutants [HAP]). The CO and organic compound emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel. It is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of the energy used at HMA plants is from the combustion of natural gas. Other potential process sources include the hot-side conveying, classifying, and mixing equipment, which are vented either to the primary dust collector (along with the dryer gas) or to a separate dust collection system. The vents and enclosures that collect emissions from these sources arecommonly called “fugitive air” or “scavenger” systems. The scavenger system may or may not have its own separate air mover device, depending on the particular facility. The emissions captured and transported by the scavenger system are mostly aggregate dust, but they may also contain gaseous organic compounds and a fine aerosol of condensed organic particles. This organic aerosol is created by thecondensation of vapor into particles during cooling of organic vapors volatilized from the asphalt cement in the mixer (pug mill). The amount of organic aerosol produced depends to a large extent on the temperature of the asphalt cement and aggregate entering the pug mill. Organic vapor and its associated CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 34 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-7 aerosol also are emitted directly to the atmosphere as process fugitives during truck load-out, from thebed of the truck itself during transport to the job site, and from the asphalt storage tank. Both the low molecular weight organic compounds and the higher weight organic aerosol contain small amounts of HAP. The ducted emissions from the heated asphalt storage tanks include gaseous and aerosol organic compounds and combustion products from the tank heater. The choice of applicable emission controls for PM emissions from the dryer and vent line includes dry mechanical collectors, scrubbers, and fabric filters. Attempts to apply electrostaticprecipitators have met with little success. Practically all plants use primary dust collection equipment such as large diameter cyclones, skimmers, or settling chambers. These chambers often are used as classifiers to return collected material to the hot elevator and to combine it with the drier aggregate. To capture remaining PM, the primary collector effluent is ducted to a secondary collection device. Mostplants use either a fabric filter or a venturi scrubber for secondary emissions control. As with any combustion process, the design, operation, and maintenance of the burner provides opportunities to minimize emissions of NOx, CO, and organic compounds. 11.1.2.2 Parallel Flow Drum Mix Plants ! The most significant ducted source of emissions from parallel-flow drum mix plants is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM;products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (including VOC, CH4, and HAP). The organic compound and CO emissions result from incomplete combustion of the fuel and from heating and mixing of the liquid asphalt cement inside the drum. Although it has been suggested that the processing of RAP materials at these type plants may increase organic compoundemissions because of an increase in mixing zone temperature during processing, the data supporting this hypothesis are very weak. Specifically, although the data show a relationship only between RAP content and condensible organic particulate emissions, 89 percent of the variations in the data were the result ofother unknown process variables. Once the organic compounds cool after discharge from the process stack, some condense to form a fine organic aerosol or “blue smoke” plume. A number of process modifications or restrictions havebeen introduced to reduce blue smoke, including installation of flame shields, rearrangement of flights inside the drum, adjustments of the asphalt injection point, and other design changes. 11.1.2.3 Counterflow Drum Mix Plants !The most significant ducted source of emissions from counterflow drum mix plants is the rotary drum dryer. Emissions from the drum consist of water (as steam evaporated from the aggregate); PM; products of combustion; CO; and small amounts of organic compounds of various species (includingVOC, CH4, and HAP). The CO and organic compound emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion of the fuel, and can also be released from the heated asphalt. Liquid asphalt cement, aggregate, and sometimes RAP, are mixed in a zone not in contact with the hot exhaust gas stream. As aresult, kiln stack emissions of organic compounds from counterflow drum mix plants may be lower thanparallel flow drum mix plants. However, variations in the emissions due to other unknown process variables are more significant. As a result, the emission factors for parallel flow and counterflow drum mix plants are the same. 11.1.2.4 Parallel and Counterflow Drum Mix Plants ! Process fugitive emissions associated with batch plant hot screens, elevators, and the mixer (pug mill) are not present in the drum mix processes. However, there are fugitive PM and VOC emissionsfrom transport and handling of the HMA from the drum mixer to the storage silo and also from the load-out operations to the delivery trucks. Since the drum process is continuous, these plants have surge CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 35 11.1-8 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 bins or storage silos. The fugitive dust sources associated with drum mix plants are similar to those ofbatch mix plants with regard to truck traffic and to aggregate material feed and handling operations. Table 11.1-1 presents emission factors for filterable PM and PM-10, condensable PM, and total PM for batch mix HMA plants. Particle size data for batch mix HMA plants, based on the controltechnology used, are shown in Table 11.1-2. Table 11.1-3 presents filterable PM and PM-10, condensable PM, and total PM emission factors for drum mix HMA plants. Particle size data for drum mix HMA plants, based on the control technology used, are shown in Table 11.1-4. Tables 11.1-5 and -6present emission factors for CO, CO2, NOx, sulfur dioxide (SO2), total organic compounds (TOC),formaldehyde, CH4, and VOC from batch mix plants. Tables 11.1-7 and -8 present emission factors for CO, CO2, NOx, SO2, TOC, CH4, VOC, and hydrochloric acid (HCl) from drum mix plants. The emission factors for CO, NOx, and organic compounds represent normal plant operations without scrutiny of theburner design, operation, and maintenance. Information provided in Reference 390 indicates that attention to burner design, periodic evaluation of burner operation, and appropriate maintenance can reduce these emissions. Table 11.1-9 presents organic pollutant emission factors for batch mix plants. Table 11.1-10 presents organic pollutant emission factors for drum mix plants. Tables 11.1-11 and -12present metals emission factors for batch and drum mix plants, respectively. Table 11.1-13 presents organic pollutant emission factors for hot (asphalt) oil systems. 11.1.2.5 Fugitive Emissions from Production Operations ! Emission factors for HMA load-out and silo filling operations can be estimated using the data in Tables 11.1-14, -15, and -16. Table 11.1-14 presents predictive emission factor equations for HMA load- out and silo filling operations. Separate equations are presented for total PM, extractable organic PM (asmeasured by EPA Method 315), TOC, and CO. For example, to estimate total PM emissions from drum mix or batch mix plant load-out operations using an asphalt loss-on-heating of 0.41 percent and temperature of 290°F, the following calculation is made: EF = 0.000181 + 0.00141(-V)e ((0.0251)(290 + 460) - 20.43) = 0.000181 + 0.00141(-(-0.41))e((0.0251)(290 + 460) - 20.43) = 0.000181 + 0.00141(0.41)e(-1.605) = 0.000181 + 0.00141(0.41)(0.2009) = 0.000181 + 0.000116 = 0.00030 lb total PM/ton of asphalt loaded Tables 11.1-15 and -16 present speciation profiles for organic particulate-based and volatile particulate-based compounds, respectively. The speciation profile shown in Table 11.1-15 can be applied to the extractable organic PM emission factors estimated by the equations in Table 11.1-14 to estimateemission factors for specific organic PM compounds. The speciation profile presented in Table 11.1-16 can be applied to the TOC emission factors estimated by the equations in Table 11.1-14 to estimate emission factors for specific volatile organic compounds. The derivations of the predictive emissionfactor equations and the speciation profiles can be found in Reference 1. For example, to estimate TOC emissions from drum mix plant load-out operations using an asphalt loss-on-heating of 0.41 percent and temperature of 290°F, the following calculation is made: EF = 0.0172(-V)e ((0.0251)(290 + 460) - 20.43) = 0.0172(-(-0.41))e((0.0251)(290 + 460) - 20.43) = 0.0172(0.41)e(-1.605) = 0.0172(0.41)(0.2009) = 0.0014 lb TOC/ton of asphalt loaded CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 36 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-9 To estimate the benzene emissions from the same operation, use the TOC emission factor calculatedabove and apply the benzene fraction for load-out emissions from Table 11.1-16: EF = 0.0014 (0.00052) = 7.3 x 10-7 lb benzene/ton of asphalt loaded Emissions from asphalt storage tanks can be estimated using the procedures described in AP-42 Section 7.1, Organic Liquid Storage Tanks, and the TANKS software. Site-specific data should be usedfor storage tank specifications and operating parameters, such as temperature. If site-specific data forAntoine’s constants for an average asphalt binder used by the facility are unavailable, the following values for an average liquid asphalt binder can be used: A = 75,350.06 B = 9.00346 These values should be inserted into the Antoine’s equation in the following form: log P 0.05223 A T B10=−+ where: P = vapor pressure, mm Hg T = absolute temperature, Kelvin The assumed average liquid molecular weight associated with these Antoine’s constants is 1,000 atomic mass units and the average vapor molecular weight is 105. Emission factors estimated using these default values should be assigned a rating of E. Carbon monoxide emissions can be estimated bymultiplying the THC emissions calculated by the TANKS program by 0.097 (the ratio of silo filling CO emissions to silo filling TOC emissions). Vapors from the HMA loaded into transport trucks continue following load-out operations. TheTOC emissions for the 8-minute period immediately following load-out (yard emissions) can be estimated using an emission factor of 0.00055 kg/Mg (0.0011 lb/ton) of asphalt loaded. This factor is assigned a rating of E. The derivation of this emission factor is described in Reference 1. Carbon monoxideemissions can be estimated by multiplying the TOC emissions by 0.32 (the ratio of truck load-out CO emissions to truck load-out THC emissions). 11.2.3 Updates Since the Fifth Edition The Fifth Edition was released in January 1995. Revisions to this section since that date are summarized below. For further detail, consult the background report for this section. This and otherdocuments can be found on the CHIEF Web Site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/, or by calling the Info CHIEF Help Desk at (919)541-1000. December 2000 !All emission factors were revised and new factors were added. For selected pollutant emissions, separate factors were developed for distilate oil, No. 6 oil and waste oil fired dryers. Dioxin andFuran emission factors were developed for oil fired drum mix plants. Particulate, VOC and CO factors were developed for silo filling, truck load out and post truck load out operations at batch plants and drum mix plants. Organic species profiles were developed for silo filling, truck load out and post truck load out operations. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 37 11.1-10 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 March 2004 ! The emission factor for formaldehyde for oil fired hot oil heaters was revised. An emission factor for formaldehyde for gas fired hot oil heaters and emission factors for CO and CO2 for gas and oil fired hot oil heaters were developed. (Table 11.1-13) CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 38 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-19 Table 11.1-9. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANTEMISSIONS FROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTSa Process Pollutant Emission Factor, lb/ton EmissionFactor Rating Ref. Nos.CASRN Name Natural gas- or No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer, hotscreens, and mixer with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-45,-46) Non-PAH Hazardous Air Pollutantsb 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde 0.00032 E 24,34 71-43-2 Benzene 0.00028 D 24,34,46, 382 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.0022 D 24,46,47,49 50-00-0 Formaldehyde 0.00074 D 24,34,46,47,49,226,382 106-51-4 Quinone 0.00027 E 24 108-88-3 Toluene 0.0010 D 24,34,46,47 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.0027 D 24,46,47,49 Total non-PAH HAPs 0.0075 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene c 7.1x10-5 D 24,47,49 83-32-9 Acenaphthene c 9.0x10-7 D 34,46,226 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene c 5.8x10-7 D 34,46,226 120-12-7 Anthracene c 2.1x10-7 D 34,46,226 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene c 4.6x10-9 E 46,226 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene c 3.1x10-10 E 226 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene c 9.4x10-9 D 34,46,226 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene c 5.0x10-10 E 226 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene c 1.3x10-8 E 34,226 218-01-9 Chrysene c 3.8x10-9 E 46,226 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene c 9.5x10-11 E 226 206-44-0 Fluoranthene c 1.6x10-7 D 34,46,47,226 86-73-7 Fluorene c 1.6x10-6 D 34,46,47,226 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene c 3.0x10-10 E 226 91-20-3 Naphthalene 3.6x10-5 D 34,46,47,49,226 85-01-8 Phenanthrene c 2.6x10-6 D 34,46,47,226 129-00-0 Pyrene c 6.2x10-8 D 34,46,226 Total PAH HAPs 0.00011 Total HAPs 0.0076 Non-HAP organic compounds 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 0.00013 E 24 78-84-2 Butyraldehyde/ isobutyraldehyde 3.0x10-5 E24 4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 2.9x10-5 E24 66-25-1 Hexanal 2.4x10-5 E24 Total non-HAPs 0.00019 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 39 Table 11.1-9 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor, lb/ton EmissionFactor Rating Ref. Nos.CASRN Name 11.1-20 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Waste oil-, drain oil-, or No. 6 fuel oil-fireddryer, hot screens, and mixer with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-002-47) Non-PAH Hazardous Air Pollutantsb 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde 0.00032 E 24,34 71-43-2 Benzene 0.00028 D 24,34,46, 382 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.0022 D 24,46,47,49 50-00-0 Formaldehyde 0.00074 D 24,34,46,47,49,226, 382 106-51-4 Quinone 0.00027 E 24 108-88-3 Toluene 0.0010 D 24,34,46,47 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.0027 D 24,46,47,49 Total non-PAH HAPs 0.0075 PAH HAPsb 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene c 7.1x10-5 D 24,47,49 83-32-9 Acenaphthene c 9.0x10-7 D 34,46,226 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene c 5.8x10-7 D 34,46,226 120-12-7 Anthracene c 2.1x10-7 D 34,46,226 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene c 4.6x10-9 E 46,226 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene c 3.1x10-10 E 226 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene c 9.4x10-9 D 34,46,226 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene c 5.0x10-10 E 226 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene c 1.3x10-8 E 34,226 218-01-9 Chrysene c 3.8x10-9 E 46,226 53-70-3 Dibenz(a,h)anthracene c 9.5x10-11 E 226 206-44-0 Fluoranthene c 2.4x10-5 E49 86-73-7 Fluorene c 1.6x10-6 D 34,46,47,226 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene c 3.0x10-10 E 226 91-20-3 Naphthalene 3.6x10-5 D 34,46,47,49, 226 85-01-8 Phenanthrene c 3.7x10-5 E49 129-00-0 Pyrene c 5.5x10-5 E49 Total PAH HAPs 0.00023 Total HAPs 0.0077 Non-HAP organic compounds 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 0.00013 E 24 78-84-2 Butyraldehyde/isobutyraldehyde 3.0x10-5 E24 4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 2.9x10 -5 E24 66-25-1 Hexanal 2.4x10-5 E24 Total non-HAPs 0.00019aEmission factor units are lb/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless noted. CASRN= Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5.b Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA).c Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 CAAA. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 40 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-21 Table 11.1-10. EMISSION FACTORS FOR ORGANIC POLLUTANTEMISSIONS FROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTSa Process Pollutant Emission Factor, lb/ton Emission Factor Rating Ref. No.CASRN Name Natural gas-fired dryer with fabricfilterb (SCC 3-05-002-55,-56,-57) Non-PAH hazardous air pollutantsc 71-43-2 Benzene d 0.00039 A 25,44,45,50, 341,342, 344-351, 373, 376, 377, 383, 384 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.00024 D 25,44,45 50-00-0 Formaldehyde e 0.0031 A 25,35,44,45,50, 339-344, 347-349, 371- 373, 384, 388 110-54-3 Hexane 0.00092 E 339-340 540-84-1 Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) 4.0x10 -5 E 339-340 71-55-6 Methyl chloroform f 4.8x10-5 E35 108-88-3 Toluene 0.00015 D 35,44,45 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.00020 D 25,44,45 Total non-PAH HAPs 0.0051 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene g 7.4x10-5 D 44,45,48 83-32-9 Acenaphthene g 1.4x10-6 E48 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene g 8.6x10-6 D 35,45,48 120-12-7 Anthracene g 2.2x10-7 E 35,48 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene g 2.1x10-7 E48 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene g 9.8x10-9 E48 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene g 1.0x10-7 E 35,48 192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene g 1.1x10-7 E48 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene g 4.0x10-8 E48 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene g 4.1x10-8 E 35,48 218-01-9 Chrysene g 1.8x10-7 E 35,48 206-44-0 Fluoranthene g 6.1x10-7 D 35,45,48 86-73-7 Fluorene g 3.8x10-6 D 35,45,48,163 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene g 7.0x10-9 E48 91-20-3 Naphthalene g 9.0x10-5 D 35,44,45,48,163 198-55-0 Perylene g 8.8x10-9 E48 85-01-8 Phenanthrene g 7.6x10-6 D 35,44,45,48,163 129-00-0 Pyrene g 5.4x10-7 D 45,48 Total PAH HAPs 0.00019 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 41 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Ref. No.CASRN Name 11.1-22 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Natural gas-fireddryer with fabric filterb (SCC 3-05-002-55, -56,-57) (cont.) Total HAPs 0.0053 Non-HAP organic compounds 106-97-8 Butane 0.00067 E 339 74-85-1 Ethylene 0.0070 E 339-340 142-82-5 Heptane 0.0094 E 339-340 763-29-1 2-Methyl-1-pentene 0.0040 E 339,340 513-35-9 2-Methyl-2-butene 0.00058 E 339,340 96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 0.00019 D 339,340 109-67-1 1-Pentene 0.0022 E 339-340 109-66-0 n-Pentane 0.00021 E 339-340 Total non-HAP organics 0.024 No. 2 fuel oil-fireddryer with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60) Non-PAH HAPsc 71-43-2 Benzene d 0.00039 A 25,44,45,50, 341, 342, 344-351, 373,376, 377, 383, 384 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.00024 D 25,44,45 50-00-0 Formaldehyde e 0.0031 A 25,35,44,45,50, 339- 344, 347-349, 371-373, 384, 388 110-54-3 Hexane 0.00092 E 339-340 540-84-1 Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) 4.0x10 -5 E 339-340 71-55-6 Methyl chloroform f 4.8x10-5 E35 108-88-3 Toluene 0.0029 E 25, 50, 339-340 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.00020 D 25,44,45 Total non-PAH HAPs 0.0078 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene g 0.00017 E 50 83-32-9 Acenaphthene g 1.4x10-6 E48 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene g 2.2x10-5 E50 120-12-7 Anthracene g 3.1x10-6 E 50,162 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene g 2.1x10-7 E48 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene g 9.8x10-9 E48 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene g 1.0x10-7 E 35,48 192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene g 1.1x10-7 E48 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 42 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Ref. No.CASRN Name 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-23 No. 2 fuel oil-fireddryer with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60) (cont.) 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene g 4.0x10-8 E48 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene g 4.1x10-8 E 35,48 218-01-9 Chrysene g 1.8x10-7 E 35,48 206-44-0 Fluoranthene g 6.1x10-7 D 35,45,48 86-73-7 Fluorene g 1.1x10-5 E 50,164 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene g 7.0x10-9 E48 91-20-3 Naphthalene g 0.00065 D 25,50,162,164 198-55-0 Perylene g 8.8x10-9 E48 85-01-8 Phenanthrene g 2.3x10-5 D 50,162,164 129-00-0 Pyrene g 3.0x10-6 E50 Total PAH HAPs 0.00088 Total HAPs 0.0087 Non-HAP organic compounds 106-97-8 Butane 0.00067 E 339 74-85-1 Ethylene 0.0070 E 339-340 142-82-5 Heptane 0.0094 E 339-340 763-29-1 2-Methyl-1-pentene 0.0040 E 339,340 513-35-9 2-Methyl-2-butene 0.00058 E 339,340 96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 0.00019 D 339,340 109-67-1 1-Pentene 0.0022 E 339-340 109-66-0 n-Pentane 0.00021 E 339-340 Total non-HAP organics 0.024 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 43 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Ref. No.CASRN Name 11.1-24 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Fuel oil- or wasteoil-fired dryer with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60,-61,-62, -63) Dioxins 1746-01-6 2,3,7,8-TCDD g 2.1x10-13 E 339 Total TCDDg 9.3x10-13 E 339 40321-76-4 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD g 3.1x10-13 E 339 Total PeCDDg 2.2x10-11 E 339-340 39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD g 4.2x10-13 E 339 57653-85-7 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD g 1.3x10-12 E 339 19408-24-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD g 9.8x10-13 E 339 Total HxCDDg 1.2x10-11 E 339-340 35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD g 4.8x10-12 E 339 Total HpCDDg 1.9x10-11 E 339-340 3268-87-9 Octa CDD g 2.5x10-11 E 339 Total PCDDg 7.9x10-11 E 339-340 Furans 51207-31-9 2,3,7,8-TCDF g 9.7x10-13 E 339 Total TCDFg 3.7x10-12 E 339-340 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDFg 4.3x10-12 E 339-340 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDFg 8.4x10-13 E 339 Total PeCDFg 8.4x10-11 E 339-340 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDFg 4.0x10-12 E 339 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDFg 1.2x10-12 E 339 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDFg 1.9x10-12 E 339 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDFg 8.4x10-12 E 340 Total HxCDFg 1.3x10-11 E 339-340 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDFg 6.5x10-12 E 339 1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDFg 2.7x10-12 E 339 Total HpCDFg 1.0x10-11 E 339-340 39001-02-0 Octa CDF g 4.8x10-12 E 339 Total PCDFg 4.0x10-11 E 339-340 Total PCDD/PCDFg 1.2x10-10 E 339-340 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 44 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Ref. No.CASRN Name 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-25 Fuel oil- or wasteoil-fired dryer (uncontrolled)(SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60,-61,-62, -63) Hazardous air pollutantsc Dioxins Total HxCDDg 5.4x10-12 E 340 35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD g 3.4x10-11 E 340 Total HpCDDg 7.1x10-11 E 340 3268-87-9 Octa CDD g 2.7x10-9 E 340 Total PCDDg 2.8x10-9 E 340 Furans Total TCDFg 3.3x10-11 E 340 Total PeCDFg 7.4x10-11 E 340 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDFg 5.4x10-12 E 340 2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDFg 1.6x10-12 E 340 Total HxCDFg 8.1x10-12 E 340 Fuel oil- or wasteoil-fired dryer (uncontrolled)(SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60,-61,-62, -63) (cont.) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDFg 1.1x10-11 E 340 Total HpCDFg 3.8x10-11 E 340 Total PCDFg 1.5x10-10 E 340 Total PCDD/PCDFg 3.0x10-9 E 340 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 45 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Ref. No.CASRN Name 11.1-26 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Waste oil-fired dryerwith fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-61,-62,-63) Non-PAH HAPsc 75-07-0 Acetaldehyde 0.0013 E 25 107-02-8 Acrolein 2.6x10-5 E25 71-43-2 Benzene d 0.00039 A 25,44,45,50,341,342,344-351, 373, 376, 377, 383, 384 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 0.00024 D 25,44,45 50-00-0 Formaldehyde e 0.0031 A 25,35,44,45,50,339- 344,347-349,371-373,384, 388 110-54-3 Hexane 0.00092 E 339-340 540-84-1 Isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) 4.0x10 -5 E 339-340 78-93-3 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 2.0x10-5 E25 123-38-6 Propionaldehyde 0.00013 E 25 106-51-4 Quinone 0.00016 E 25 71-55-6 Methyl chloroform f 4.8x10-5 E35 108-88-3 Toluene 0.0029 E 25, 50, 339-340 1330-20-7 Xylene 0.00020 D 25,44,45 Total non-PAH HAPs 0.0095 PAH HAPs 91-57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene g 0.00017 E 50 83-32-9 Acenaphthene g 1.4x10-6 E48 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene g 2.2x10-5 E50 120-12-7 Anthracene g 3.1x10-6 E 50,162 56-55-3 Benzo(a)anthracene g 2.1x10-7 E48 50-32-8 Benzo(a)pyrene g 9.8x10-9 E48 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene g 1.0x10-7 E 35,48 192-97-2 Benzo(e)pyrene g 1.1x10-7 E48 191-24-2 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene g 4.0x10-8 E48 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 46 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Ref. No.CASRN Name 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-27 Waste oil-fired dryerwith fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-61,-62,-63) (cont.) 207-08-9 Benzo(k)fluoranthene g 4.1x10-8 E 35,48 218-01-9 Chrysene g 1.8x10-7 E 35,48 206-44-0 Fluoranthene g 6.1x10-7 D 35,45,48 86-73-7 Fluorene g 1.1x10-5 E 50,164 193-39-5 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene g 7.0x10-9 E48 91-20-3 Naphthalene g 0.00065 D 25,50,162,164 198-55-0 Perylene g 8.8x10-9 E48 85-01-8 Phenanthrene g 2.3x10-5 D 50,162,164 129-00-0 Pyrene g 3.0x10-6 E50 Total PAH HAPs 0.00088 Total HAPs 0.010 Non-HAP organic compounds 67-64-1 Acetone f 0.00083 E 25 100-52-7 Benzaldehyde 0.00011 E 25 106-97-8 Butane 0.00067 E 339 78-84-2 Butyraldehyde 0.00016 E 25 4170-30-3 Crotonaldehyde 8.6x10-5 E25 74-85-1 Ethylene 0.0070 E 339, 340 142-82-5 Heptane 0.0094 E 339, 340 66-25-1 Hexanal 0.00011 E 25 590-86-3 Isovaleraldehyde 3.2x10-5 E25 763-29-1 2-Methyl-1-pentene 0.0040 E 339, 340 513-35-9 2-Methyl-2-butene 0.00058 E 339, 340 96-14-0 3-Methylpentane 0.00019 D 339, 340 109-67-1 1-Pentene 0.0022 E 339, 340 109-66-0 n-Pentane 0.00021 E 339, 340 110-62-3 Valeraldehyde 6.7x10-5 E25 Total non-HAP organics 0.026 a Emission factor units are lb/ton of hot mix asphalt produced. Table includes data from both parallel flow and counterflow drum mix dryers. Organic compound emissions from counterflow systems areexpected to be less than from parallel flow systems, but the available data are insufficient to quantify CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 47 Table 11.1-10 (cont.) 11.1-28 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 accurately the difference in these emissions. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. b Tests included dryers that were processing reclaimed asphalt pavement. Because of limited data, the effect of RAP processing on emissions could not be determined.c Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). d Based on data from 19 tests. Range: 0.000063 to 0.0012 lb/ton; median: 0.00030; Standard deviation: 0.00031.e Based on data from 21 tests. Range: 0.0030 to 0.014 lb/ton; median: 0.0020; Standard deviation: 0.0036. f Compound has negligible photochemical reactivity. g Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 CAAA. Total PCDD is thesum of the total tetra through octa dioxins; total PCDF is sum of the total tetra through octa furans; and total PCDD/PCDF is the sum of total PCDD and total PCDF. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 48 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-29 Table 11.1-11. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONSFROM BATCH MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTSa Process Pollutant EmissionFactor, lb/ton EmissionFactor Rating ReferenceNumbers Dryer, hot screens, and mixerb (SCC 3-05-002-45,-46,-47) Arsenicc BariumBerylliumc Cadmiumc Chromiumc Hexavalent chromiumc Copper Leadc Manganesec Mercuryc Nickelc Seleniumc Zinc 4.6x10-7 1.5x10-6 1.5x10-7 6.1x10-7 5.7x10-7 4.8x10-8 2.8x10-6 8.9x10-7 6.9x10-6 4.1x10-7 3.0x10-6 4.9x10-7 6.8x10-6 D EE D DED D DE D ED 34, 40, 226 2434, 226 24, 34, 226 24, 34, 22634, 226 24, 34, 226 24, 34, 226 24, 34, 22634, 226 24, 34, 226 34, 22624, 34, 226 a Emission factor units are lb/ton of HMA produced. Emissions controlled by a fabric filter. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. b Natural gas-, propane-, No. 2 fuel oil-, or waste oil-/drain oil-/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryer. For waste oil-/drain oil-/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryer, use a lead emission factor of 1.0x10-5 lb/ton (References 177 and 321, Emission factor rating: E) in lieu of the emission factor shown. c Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, andselenium are HAPs as defined in the 1990 CAAA. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 49 11.1-30 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Table 11.1-12. EMISSION FACTORS FOR METAL EMISSIONSFROM DRUM MIX HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANTSa Process Pollutant EmissionFactor, lb/ton EmissionFactor Rating Reference Numbers Fuel oil-fired dryer,uncontrolled (SCC 3-05-002-58,-59,-60) Arsenicb Barium Berylliumb Cadmiumb Chromiumb Cobaltb Copper Leadb Manganeseb Nickelb Phosphorusb Seleniumb ThalliumZinc 1.3x10-6 0.00025 0.04.2x10-6 2.4x10-5 1.5x10-5 0.00017 0.000540.00065 0.00130.0012 2.4x10-6 2.2x10-6 0.00018 EE EE E EE EE EE E EE 340340 340340 340 340340 340340 340340340 340340 Natural gas- or propane-fired dryer, with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-55, -56,-57)) Antimony Arsenicb Barium Berylliumb Cadmiumb Chromiumb Cobaltb Copper Hexavalent chromiumb Leadb Manganeseb Mercuryb Nickelb Phosphorusb Silver Seleniumb ThalliumZinc 1.8x10-7 5.6x10-7 5.8x10-6 0.0 4.1x10-7 5.5x10-6 2.6x10-8 3.1x10-6 4.5x10-7 6.2x10-7 7.7x10-6 2.4x10-7 6.3x10-5 2.8x10-5 4.8x10-7 3.5x10-7 4.1x10-9 6.1x10-5 E DEE DC ED E ED ED EEE EC 339 25, 35, 339-340 25, 339-340339-340 25, 35, 162, 301, 339-34025, 162-164, 301, 339-340 339-34025, 162-164, 339-340 163 3525, 162-164, 339-340 35, 16325, 163-164, 339-340 25, 339-340 25, 339-340339-340 339-34025, 35, 162-164, 339-340 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 50 Table 11.1-12 (cont.) Process Pollutant Emission Factor,lb/ton Emission FactorRating Reference Numbers 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-31 No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer or waste oil/drainoil/No. 6 fuel oil-fired dryer, with fabric filter (SCC 3-05-002-58, -59,-60,-61,-62,-63) Antimony Arsenicb Barium Berylliumb Cadmiumb Chromiumb Cobaltb Copper Hexavalent chromiumb Leadb Manganeseb Mercuryb Nickelb Phosphorusb SilverSeleniumb ThalliumZinc 1.8x10-7 5.6x10-7 5.8x10-6 0.04.1x10-7 5.5x10-6 2.6x10-8 3.1x10-6 4.5x10-7 1.5x10-5 7.7x10-6 2.6x10-6 6.3x10-5 2.8x10-5 4.8x10-7 3.5x10-7 4.1x10-9 6.1x10-5 E DE ED CE D EC D D DE EE EC 339 25, 35, 339-34025, 339-340 339-34025, 35, 162, 301, 339-340 25, 162-164, 301, 339-340 339-34025, 162-164, 339-340 16325, 162, 164, 178-179, 183, 301, 315, 339-34025, 162-164, 339-340 162, 164, 339-340 25, 163-164, 339-34025, 339-340 25, 339-340339-340 339-340 25, 35, 162-164, 339-340 a Emission factor units are lb/ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. Emission factors apply to facilities processing virgin aggregateor a combination of virgin aggregate and RAP. b Arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, hexavalent chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium compounds are HAPs as defined in the 1990 CAAA. Elemental phosphorus also is a listed HAP, but the phosphorus measured by Method 29 is not elemental phosphorus. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 51 11.1-32 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Table 11.1-13. EMISSION FACTORS FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT HOT OIL SYSTEMSa Process Pollutant Emission factor Emission factor units EMISSIONFACTOR RATING ReferenceCASRNName Hot oil system fired with natural gas (SCC 3-05-002-06) 630-08-0 Carbon monoxide 8.9x10 -6 lb/ft3 C 395 124-38-9 Carbon dioxide 0.20 lb/ft 3 C 395 50-00-0 Formaldehyde 2.6x10 -8 lb/ft3 C 395 Hot oil system fired with No. 2 fuel oil(SCC 3-05-002-08) 630-08-0 Carbon monoxide 0.0012 lb/gal C 395 124-38-9 Carbon dioxide 28 lb/gal C 395 50-00-0 Formaldehyde 3.5x10 -6 lb/gal C 395 83-32-9 Acenaphthene b 5.3x10-7 lb/gal E 35 208-96-8 Acenaphthylene b 2.0x10-7 lb/gal E 35 120-12-7 Anthracene b 1.8x10-7 lb/gal E 35 205-99-2 Benzo(b)fluoranthene b 1.0x10-7 lb/gal E 35 206-44-0 Fluoranthene b 4.4x10-8 lb/gal E 35 86-73-7 Fluorene b 3.2x10-8 lb/gal E 35 91-20-3 Naphthalene b 1.7x10-5 lb/gal E 35 85-01-8 Phenanthrene b 4.9x10-6 lb/gal E 35 129-00-0 Pyrene b 3.2x10-8 lb/gal E 35 Dioxins 19408-74-3 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD b 7.6x10-13 lb/gal E 35 39227-28-6 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD b 6.9x10-13 lb/gal E 35 HxCDDb 6.2x10-12 lb/gal E 35 35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD b 1.5x10-11 lb/gal E 35 HpCDDb 2.0x10-11 lb/gal E 35 3268-87-9 OCDD b 1.6x10-10 lb/gal E 35 Total PCDD 2.0x10-10 lb/gal E 35 Furans TCDFb 3.3x10-12 lb/gal E 35 PeCDFb 4.8x10-13 lb/gal E 35 HxCDFb 2.0x10-12 lb/gal E 35 HpCDFb 9.7x10-12 lb/gal E 35 67562-39-4 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF b 3.5x10-12 lb/gal E 35 39001-02-0 OCDF b 1.2x10-11 lb/gal E 35 Total PCDF 3.1x10-11 lb/gal E 35 Total PCDD/PCDF 2.3x10 -10 lb/gal E 35 a Emission factor units are lb/gal of fuel consumed. To convert from pounds per standard cubic foot (lb/ft3) to kilograms per standard cubic meter (kg/m3), multiply by 16. To convert from lb/gal to kilograms per liter (kg/l), multiply by 0.12. CASRN = Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number. SCC = Source Classification Code.b Compound is classified as polycyclic organic matter, as defined in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Total PCDD is the sum of the total tetra through octa dioxins; total PCDF is sum of the total tetra through octa furans; and total PCDD/PCDF is the sum of total PCDD and total PCDF. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 52 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-33 Table 11.1-14. PREDICTIVE EMISSION FACTOR EQUATIONS FOR LOAD-OUT AND SILO FILLING OPERATIONSa EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Source Pollutant Equation Drum mix or batch mixplant load-out (SCC 3-05-002-14) Total PMb EF = 0.000181 + 0.00141(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) Organic PMc EF = 0.00141(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) TOCd EF = 0.0172(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) CO EF = 0.00558(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) Silo filling (SCC 3-05-002-13) Total PMb EF = 0.000332 + 0.00105(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) Organic PMc EF = 0.00105(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) TOCd EF = 0.0504(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) CO EF = 0.00488(-V)e((0.0251)(T + 460) - 20.43) a Emission factor units are lb/ton of HMA produced. SCC = Source Classification Code. To convert from lb/ton to kg/Mg, multiply by 0.5. EF = emission factor; V = asphalt volatility, as determined by ASTM Method D2872-88 “Effects of Heat and Air on a Moving Film of Asphalt (Rolling Thin FilmOven Test - RTFOT),” where a 0.5 percent loss-on-heating is expressed as “-0.5.” Regional- or site- specific data for asphalt volatility should be used, whenever possible; otherwise, a default value of -0.5 should be used for V in these equations. T = HMA mix temperature in °F. Site-specific temperaturedata should be used, whenever possible; otherwise a default temperature of 325°F can be used. Reference 1, Tables 4-27 through 4-31, 4-34 through 4-36, and 4-38 through 4-41. b Total PM, as measured by EPA Method 315 (EPA Method 5 plus the extractable organic particulate from the impingers). Total PM is assumed to be predominantly PM-2.5 since emissions consist ofcondensed vapors. c Extractable organic PM, as measured by EPA Method 315 (methylene chloride extract of EPA Method 5 particulate plus methylene chloride extract of impinger particulate). d TOC as propane, as measured with an EPA Method 25A sampling train or equivalent sampling train. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 53 11.1-34 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 Table 11.1-15. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR LOAD-OUT, SILO FILLING, AND ASPHALT STORAGE EMISSIONS–ORGANIC PARTICULATE-BASED COMPOUNDS EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Pollutant CASRNa Speciation Profile forLoad-out and Yard Emissionsb Speciation Profile for SiloFilling and Asphalt Storage Tank Emissions Compound/Organic PMc Compound/Organic PMc PAH HAPs Acenaphthene 83-32-9 0.26%0.47% Acenaphthylene 208-96-8 0.028%0.014% Anthracene 120-1207 0.070%0.13% Benzo(a)anthracene 56-55-3 0.019%0.056% Benzo(b)fluoranthene 205-99-2 0.0076%NDd Benzo(k)fluoranthene 207-08-9 0.0022%NDd Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 191-24-2 0.0019%NDd Benzo(a)pyrene 50-32-8 0.0023%NDd Benzo(e)pyrene 192-97-2 0.0078%0.0095% Chrysene 218-01-9 0.103%0.21% Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3 0.00037%NDd Fluoranthene 206-44-0 0.050%0.15% Fluorene 86-73-7 0.77%1.01% Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 193-39-5 0.00047%NDd 2-Methylnaphthalene 91-57-6 2.38%5.27% Naphthalene 91-20-3 1.25%1.82% Perylene 198-55-0 0.022%0.030% Phenanthrene 85-01-8 0.81%1.80% Pyrene 129-00-0 0.15%0.44% Total PAH HAPs 5.93%11.40% Other semi-volatile HAPs Phenol 1.18%NDd a Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number. b Emissions from loaded trucks during the period between load-out and the time the truck departs theplant. c Emission factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound by the emission factor for extractable organic particulate (organic PM) as determined fromTable 11.1-14. d ND = Measured data below detection limits. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 54 3/04 Mineral Products Industry 11.1-35 Table 11.1-16. SPECIATION PROFILES FOR LOAD-OUT, SILO FILLING, AND ASPHALT STORAGE EMISSIONS–ORGANIC VOLATILE-BASED COMPOUNDS EMISSION FACTOR RATING: C Pollutant CASRN Speciation Profile for Load-Out and YardEmissions Speciation Profile for Silo Filling and Asphalt StorageTank Emissions Compound/TOCa Compound/TOC (%)a VOCb 94%b 100% Non-VOC/non-HAPs Methane 74-82-8 6.5%0.26% Acetone 67-64-1 0.046%0.055% Ethylene 74-85-1 0.71%1.1% Total non-VOC/non-HAPS 7.3%1.4% Volatile organic HAPS Benzene 71-43-2 0.052%0.032% Bromomethane 74-83-9 0.0096%0.0049% 2-Butanone 78-93-3 0.049%0.039% Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0 0.013%0.016% Chloroethane 75-00-3 0.00021%0.0040% Chloromethane 74-87-3 0.015%0.023% Cumene 92-82-8 0.11%NDc Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 0.28%0.038% Formaldehyde 50-00-0 0.088%0.69% n-Hexane 100-54-3 0.15%0.10% Isooctane 540-84-1 0.0018%0.00031% Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 0.0%d 0.00027% MTBE 596899 0.0%d NDc Styrene 100-42-5 0.0073%0.0054% Tetrachloroethene 127-18-4 0.0077%NDc Toluene 100-88-3 0.21%0.062% 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6 0.0%d NDc Trichloroethene 79-01-6 0.0%d NDc Trichlorofluoromethane 75-69-4 0.0013%NDc m-/p-Xylene 1330-20-7 0.41%0.2% o-Xylene 95-47-6 0.08%0.057% Total volatile organic HAPs 1.5%1.3% CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 55 Table 11.1-16 (cont.) 11.1-36 EMISSION FACTORS 3/04 a Emission factor for compound is determined by multiplying the percentage presented for the compound by the emission factor for total organic compounds (TOC) as determined from Table 11.1- 14.b The VOC percentages are equal to 100 percent of TOC minus the methane, acetone, methylenechloride, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane percentages.c ND = Measured data below detection limits. Additional compounds that were not detected are: acrylonitrile, allyl chloride, bromodichloromethane, bromoform, 1,3-butadiene, carbon tetrachloride,chlorobenzene, chloroform, dibromochloromethane, 1,2-dibromoethane, 1,1-dichloroethane,1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloropropane, cis-1,3-dichloropropene, trans-1,3-dichloropropene, 1,2-epoxybutane, ethyl acrylate, 2-hexanone, iodomethane, methyl methacrylate, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,1,1,2-trichloroethane, vinyl acetate, vinyl bromide, and vinyl chloridedValues presented as 0.0% had background concentrations higher than the capture efficiency-corrected measured concentration. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 56 Technology Transfer Network Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors Contact Us | Print Version Search: EPA Home > Technology Transfer Network >Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors >Emission Factor Information >AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors > Chapter 11: Mineral Products Industry > Proposed Revision to AP-42, 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants Emission Factor & Inventory Information Conferences Publications Emission Inventory Improvement Program AirDATA Related Sites Site Index Proposed Revision to AP-42, 11.1 Hot Mix Asphalt Plants December 2, 2003 The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) has proposed a revision of the emission factors for hot oil heaters at hot mix asphalt plants. A preliminary review of their proposal was performed by EPA to verify that the published procedures for developing emission factors ( Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents , EPA-454/R-95-015, November 1997, PDF 477K) were followed. As a result, the proposed revisions are being posted on the CHIEF web site as draft for comment. EPA will accept comments on the draft revisions until January 16, 2004. Comments concerning the proposed revisions should be e-mailed to Ron Myers at myers.ron@epa.gov with copies to Una Connolly of NAPA at uconnolly@hotmix.org. To assist reviewers in commenting on the revisions, the following documents are being made available on the CHIEF web site: At the conclusion of the comment period, EPA will provide the comments to NAPA for evaluation, preparation of responses and revision of the portions of the Section and Background report. EPA will evaluate the responses and revisions prepared by NAPA and determine whether they are scientifically and technically sound and consistent with established EPA procedures. While the information included in this draft concerns only formaldehyde, CO and CO2 emissions from hot oil heaters, the final AP-42 Section and Background Report will be published as a single set of documents which incorporate these revisions. AP-42 Emission Factors by Chapter Memo from Bryan Shrager and Rick Marenshaw of RTI International to Ron Myers of EPA proposing Hot Mix Asphalt AP-42 Revision.(PDF 57K) Quality Assurance Project Plan & Site-specific Test Plan, Formaldehyde Emissions Testing from Asphalt Heaters - March 19,2003. (PDF 2.2M) Test Report - Formaldehyde Emissions Testing from Asphalt Heaters - October 2003.(PDF 1.8M) Comprehensive Emission Inventory Report As Required Under The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information & Assessment Act Of 1987, September 1990, Reference 35 for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants (PDF 2.75M) | Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards | Technology Transfer Network | | Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors | Page 1 of 2Technology Transfer Network | Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emission Factors | Propo... 3/24/2004http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/related/c11s01_revison.html CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 57 www.BREDL.org STUDIES DOCUMENT NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROMASPHALT PLANTS PROPERTYVALUESAND PUBLIC HEALTH SUFFER The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League has released two studies showing the adverse impacts on property values and public health for residents livingnear operating asphalt plants in Avery and Macon counties. The property value study shows losses of up to 56% around a plant in Pineola, and in Cullasaja nearly half of the residents report negative impacts on their health since asphalt plant operationsbegan in 1999. In Avery County tax office officials used distance from Maymead Materials, Inc. asphalt plant and noxious odor emissions as the bases for property devaluation in Pineola. The largest percentage drop was recorded on property located directly across the road from the plant. The largest dollar loss of $45,300 was at a church adjacent to the plant. The study documents property value losses up to 3,200 feet from the plant. Pineola resident Dale Thompson and many of his neighbors sought tax relief when the asphalt plant effectively reduced their use and enjoyment of their homes and land. Mr. Thompson cited smokeand vile odors as reasons why he and his family can no longer spend time outdoors at either recreation or work. In a second study, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League conducted a survey in response to health concerns of residents in the mountain community of Bethel in Macon County. The door-to-door survey shows that 45% of the residents living within a half mile of the two year old Rhodes Brothers asphalt plant report a deterioration of their health which began after the plant opened. The most frequent problems include high blood pressure (18% of people surveyed), sinus problems (18%), headaches (14%), and shortness of breath (9%). Pineola’s experience with property devaluation gives us only a part of the picture. The effect on the health of residents in these two communities is devastating. People who have only a passing acquaintance with asphalt fumes know little about the true dangers of this pollution. Good health is priceless—It’s simply absurd to say that asphalt plants have no impact. Louis Zeller January 6, 2004 BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE POBox88 GlendaleSprings,NorthCarolina 28629 Phone336-982-2691 Fax336-982-2954 Emailbredl@skybest.com CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 58 Asphalt Plant Fugitive Air Emissions: A Public Health Hazard The effect of fugitive emissions on local pollution levels may exceed the effects of pollutants emitted from the smokestack. Fugitive emissions are air pollution from a source close to groundlevel. Hot mix asphalt contains gravel and sand mixed with asphalt cement obtained from crude oil. Hydrocarbons released into the air by the hot mix asphalt as it is loaded into trucks and hauled from the plant site include volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and condensed particulates. Because fugitive emissions occur close to ground level, wind velocity is reduced and air pollution is not subject to the dispersion which occurs at smokestack levels. Stagnant air conditions andinversions increase the level of exposure to the local community. Asphalt cement is a mixture of hydrocarbons including naphtha which contribute to the vaporization of organic compounds at operating temperatures of 300-350 degrees F. Condensation of particulates occurs at ambient temperatures of 70 degrees F. These very fine particles carry polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons which are a danger to public health. If you know the annual consumption of asphalt cement, you can calculate the asphaltvapor emissions from any plant. Asphalt cement comprises 5% (0.05) of the total hot mix plant production. Fugitive air emissionsequal 1.07% (0.0107) of the consumed asphalt cement (data from Dr. R.M. Nadkarni). For an asphalt plant producing 100,000 tons of hot mix asphalt per year: 100,000 tons hot mix x 0.05 = 5,000 tons/year of asphalt cement consumed. Fugitive air emissions equal 1.07% (0.0107) of the consumed asphalt. 5,000 x 0.0107 = 53.5 tons per year of asphalt vapor fugitive emissions The bulk of these fugitive emissions are condensed particulates. Volatile organic compounds (VOC's) emissions are about 29% of the this total. Therefore, about 15 tons of VOC's and 38 tons of particulates may be emitted by a 100,000 ton/year asphalt plantas fugitive emissions. To this must be added the total emitted from the smokestack itself. The US Department of Health and Human Services has determined that PAHs (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) may be carcinogenic to humans. Animal studies showthat PAHs affect reproduction, cause birth defects, and cause harmful effects on skin, body fluids, and the immune system. Similar effects could occur in humans.September 3, 2002 Louis Zeller BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE www.BREDL.org ~ POBox88 GlendaleSprings,NorthCarolina 28629 ~ Phone336-982-2691~Fax336-982-2954~Emailbredl@skybest.com CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 59 Printed on 100% recycled paper using a chlorine-free process BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE www.BREDL.org ~ POBox88 GlendaleSprings,NorthCarolina 28629 ~ Phone(336)982-2691 ~ Fax (336)982-2954 ~ Email: BREDL@skybest.com Asphalt Plant versus Wood Stove Pollution Comparing Apples and Hedgehogs Asphalt plants and household wood stoves burn fuel to produce heat. Although they burn different types of fuel, both emit some of the same chemical compounds into the air as a result of the combustion process. But a household wood stove emits but a tiny fraction of the pollution emitted by an asphalt plant. This is why one expert said that this is like comparing apples to hedgehogs, because apples-to-oranges simply does not convey the huge disparity in pollution emitted by these two sources. The table below evaluates air pollution from a conventional household wood heater stove and an average size asphalt plant. In every category, the asphalt plant emits from hundreds to thousands or even millions of times more air pollution. Emission data from US Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Emission Factors Hot Mix Asphalt Plants, AP-42, 11.1 3/04 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c11s01.pdfResidential Wood Stoves, AP-42, 1.10 10/96 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s10.pdf The US Environmental Protection Agency’s most recently available air pollution emission factors for both wood stoves and asphalt plants were used to compile the data in this report. The combustion of wood produces atmospheric emissions which are highly variable. For Air pollutant Wood stove emissions lb/y Asphalt plant emissions lb/y Comparison % Wood to asphalt Carbon monoxide 249.7 39,000 0.64 % Nitrogen oxides 3.02 16,500 0.02 % PM-10 33.05 6,900 0.48 % Sulfur dioxide 0.43 3,300 0.01 % Total organic compounds 89.6 13,200 0.68 % Methane 32.4 3,600 0.9 % Benzene 2.09 117 1.79 % Toluene 0.79 70 1.13 % Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons 0.79 264 0.30 % Cadmium 0.00002 1.26 0.0016 % Chromium <0.000001 7.2 0.000014 % Nickel 0.000015 390 0.000004 % CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 60 Printed on 100% recycled paper using a chlorine-free process Page 2 Comparing Apples and Hedgehogs example, when wood is added to a wood-burning heater stove, emissions increase for a short period because of a high burn rate. Then a longer period at lower burn rate follows during which time charcoal is burned, resulting in reduced emissions. Many woodstoves manufactured after 1986 have pollution reduction features. The manufacture of asphalt paving produces high levels of atmospheric emissions. Some of these pollutants are emitted through the smokestack after passing through a fabric filter, some are released at ground level without any pollution controls. The ground-level emissions are poorly estimated by state and federal air quality guidance. To calculate the annual pollution totals for this report, we compared a drum-mix asphalt plant burning number 2 fuel oil producing 300 thousand tons of asphalt per year with a residential wood stove burning three cords of oak wood per year. The Carolina Asphalt Paving Association claims that ten residential wood stoves emit as much polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as an asphalt plant. (http://www.carolinaasphalt.org/ about_research.asp). Plainly, this assertion is not supported by EPA data. In fact, an average sized asphalt plant can emit more PAH than 300 wood stoves, more sulfur dioxide than 7,000 wood stoves, and more cadmium than 63,000 wood stoves. Emission data from US Environmental Protection Agency Air Pollution Emission Factors Residential Fireplaces, AP-42, 1.9, 10/96 at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/final/c01s09.pdf Further, CAPA states that “during the course of a year, an asphalt plant gave off the VOCs of two residential fireplaces.” Again, the EPA emission factors tell a different story; a single medium sized asphalt plant produces as much VOC as 39 fireplaces burning three cords of oak. Other categories of pollutants emitted by fireplaces are similar to those of wood-burning stoves. Open fireplaces are inefficient sources of heat because combustion is poorly regulated. Uncontrolled air and a lack of secondary combustion results in relatively high quantities of unburnt compounds going up the chimney. Nevertheless, comparing the air pollution from a modern type asphalt plant with an old-fashioned fireplace is like comparing apples to hedgehogs. Louis Zeller October 20, 2005 Air pollutant Fireplace emissions lb/y Asphalt plant Emissions lb/y Comparison % Wood to asphalt Volatile organic compounds (VOC) 247.3 9,600 2.6 % CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 61 HAZARD REVIEW HEALTH EFFECTS OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASPHALT Contributors: Mary Ann Butler, Ph.D. Gregory Burr, C.I.H. David Dankovic, Ph.D. R. Alan Lunsford, Ph.D. Aubrey Miller, M.D. Mimi Nguyen, M.P.H. Larry Olsen, Ph.D. Douglas Sharpnack, Ph.D. John Snawder, Ph.D. Leslie Stayner, Ph.D. Marie Haring Sweeney, Ph.D. Alexander Teass, Ph.D. Joann Wess, M.S. Ralph Zumwalde, M.S. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health December 2000 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 62 vii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1977, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reviewed the available data on the health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt and asphalt fumes. NIOSH determined the principal adverse health effects to be irritation of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae and mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. NIOSH also acknowledged that evidence from animal studies indicated that asphalt left on the skin for long periods of time could result in local carcinomas but that no comparable reports of these effects existed for humans. On the basis of this evidence, NIOSH recommended an exposure limit (REL) for asphalt fumes of 5 milligrams per cubic meter of air (5 mg/m3) measured as total particulates during any 15-minute period. In testimony to the Department of Labor in 1988, NIOSH recommended that asphalt fumes also be considered a potential occupational carcinogen. Since then, additional data have become available from studies of animals and humans exposed to asphalt, paving and roofing asphalt fume condensates, and asphalt-based paints. This document evaluates the health effects data that have become available since publication of the 1977 NIOSH criteria document; it also assesses exposures associated with occupations that involve the use of roofing and paving asphalts and asphalt-based paints. Asphalt is a dark brown to black, cementlike semisolid or solid produced by the nondestructive distillation of crude oil during petroleum refining. The three major types of asphalt products are paving asphalts, roofing asphalts, and asphalt-based paints. Performance specifications—not chemical composition—direct the type of asphalt produced. Most of the asphalt produced in the United States is used in paving and roofing operations. Only about 1% is used for waterproofing, damp-proofing, insulation, paints, or other activities and products. Approximately 300,000 workers are employed at hot-mix asphalt facilities and paving sites; an estimated 50,000 workers are employed in asphalt roofing operations; and about 1,500 to 2,000 workers are exposed to asphalt fumes in approximately 100 roofing manufacturing plants. The exact chemical composition of asphalt depends on the chemical complexity of the original crude petroleum and the manufacturing processes. The proportions of the chemicals that constitute asphalt (mainly aliphatic compounds, cyclic alkanes, aromatic hydrocarbons, and heterocyclic compounds containing nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur atoms) can vary because of significant differences in crude petroleum from various oil fields and even from various locations within the same oil field. Further analysis of the chemical data indicates that paving and roofing asphalts are qualitatively and quantitatively different; therefore, the vapors and fumes from these asphalt products may also be different. Other factors that increase the variability of asphalt vapors and fumes include temperature and mixing during the manufacturing process, and temperature and extent of mixing during laboratory generation or field operations. Studies indicate that the composition of asphalt fumes generated in the laboratory may differ qualitatively and quantitatively from asphalt fumes generated during field operations. However, one study showed that it is possible to generate asphalt fumes in the laboratory that are representative of field fumes. Data are limited regarding the presence of carcinogens in asphalt fumes generated at U.S. worksites. The occasional detection of benzo(a)pyrene, B(a)P, in asphalt fumes generated at worksites as well as the more frequent detection of B(a)P and other carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic compounds in laboratory-generated asphalt fumes indicate that under some conditions, known carcinogens are CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 63 viii likely to be present. Moreover, asphalt fumes generated at high temperatures are probably more likely to generate carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) than fumes generated at lower temperatures. Studies of the acute toxic effects of asphalt fume exposures in workers have repeatedly reported irritant symptoms of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae (eye irritation) and the mucous membranes of the upper respiratory tract (nasal and throat irritation). These health effects are best described in asphalt road pavers and typically appear to be mild in severity and transient in nature. Similar symptoms were also reported in workers exposed to asphalt fumes during the manufacture of asphalt roofing shingles and fluorescent lights, the insulation of cables, and exposure to a malfunctioning light fixture in an office environment. Workers employed in five segments of the asphalt industry (hot-mix plants, terminals, roofing, paving, and roofing manufacturing) experienced mild transient symptoms of nasal and throat irritation, headache, and coughing. In addition to mucosal irritation, workers with differing occupational exposures to asphalt fumes (e.g., paving operations, insulation of cables, and manufacturing of fluorescent light fixtures) also reported skin irritation, pruritus, rashes, nausea, stomach pain, decreased appetite, headaches, and fatigue. Such nonspecific symptoms require further investigation to clarify and establish the nature of causal relationships with asphalt fume exposure. Results from recent studies indicated that some workers involved in asphalt paving operations experienced lower respiratory tract symptoms (e.g., coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath) and pulmonary function changes. Irritant symptoms were noted in workers involved in open-air paving operations whose average personal exposures were generally below 1.0 mg/m3 total particulates and 0.3 mg/m3 benzene-soluble particulates calculated as a full-shift time-weighted average (TWA). Although an exposure-response relationship has not yet been established in these studies, the identification of health effects related to higher mean personal exposures during underground asphalt paving* indicates that such a relationship may exist. Bronchitis that is possibly related to lower respiratory tract irritation has also been reported among asphalt workers and highway maintenance workers; however, the data are insufficient to conclude that the bronchitis was caused by occupational exposure to asphalt fumes. A recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of roofers indicates an excess of lung cancer among roofers, but it is uncertain whether this excess is related to asphalt and/or to carcinogens such as coal tar or asbestos. Data from studies in animals and in vitro assays indicate that laboratory-generated roofing asphalt fume condensates are genotoxic and produce skin tumors in mice. Known carcinogenic PAHs have been identified in roofing asphalt fumes. In contrast to the studies of roofers, epidemiologic studies of pavers exposed to asphalt fumes have yielded contradictory results regarding lung cancer. Although some of the studies reported an elevated risk for lung cancer among pavers exposed to asphalt, design limitations of these studies precluded any strong conclusions. Confounders included smoking and coexposure to coal tar and other potential lung carcinogens (e.g., diesel exhaust, silica, and asbestos). Furthermore, a recently *Total particulate or benzene-soluble particulate measurements were up to 10 times higher than measurements taken during open-air paving, but they were still below 2.2 mg/m3. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 64 ix conducted meta-analysis of these studies failed to find overall evidence for a lung cancer risk among pavers exposed to asphalt. However, carcinogenic PAHs have been detected in asphalt paving fumes—although at lower concentrations than those found in fumes from roofing asphalt. No published data examine the carcinogenic potential of paving asphalt fumes or fume condensates in animals. A few studies reported an association between cancer at sites other than the lungs (e.g., bladder, kidneys, brain, and liver) with occupations having potential exposure to asphalt. Since the interpretation of these findings is limited by the study designs and the lack of good exposure data and consistent findings, no association can be made at this time. Further confirmation is needed by studies with better control of confounding variables and better identification of asphalt exposures. Conflicting results were obtained when raw roofing asphalts were applied dermally to mice. In one study, the raw roofing asphalt was weakly carcinogenic and caused malignant skin tumors in mice. In the other study, the raw roofing asphalt was not carcinogenic. Available data also indicate that several formulations of asphalt-based paints cause benign and malignant skin tumors in mice. However, these paints were not mutagenic in the Ames Salmonella mutagenicity assay, either with or without metabolic activation. Several other asphalt-based paints caused the formation of DNA adducts in the skin and lungs of treated mice and in fetal and adult human skin cultures. ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions In this hazard review, NIOSH has evaluated the scientific evidence concerning the potential health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt. On the basis of available data from studies in animals and humans, as well as in in vitro studies, NIOSH concludes the following about the acute health effects of asphalt exposure: • The findings of this hazard review continue to support the assessment of the 1977 NIOSH criteria document on asphalt fumes, which associated exposure to asphalt fumes from roofing, paving, and other uses of asphalt with irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. Furthermore, in studies conducted since the publication of the 1977 criteria document, these symptoms have also been noted among workers exposed to asphalt fumes at geometric mean concentrations generally below 1 mg/m3 total particulates and 0.3 mg/m3 benzene-soluble or carbon disulfide-soluble particulates, calculated as a full-shift TWA. Recent studies also report evidence of acute lower respiratory tract symptoms among workers exposed to asphalt fumes. These data are currently being further analyzed to assess the relationship between lower respiratory tract symptoms and asphalt fume exposure. The available data on chronic pulmonary effects (such as bronchitis) are insufficient to support an association with asphalt fume exposures. In 1988, NIOSH recommended to OSHA that asphalt fumes be considered a potential occupational carcinogen based on the results of an animal study in which laboratory-generated roofing asphalt fume condensates induced malignant skin tumors in mice. Since then, investigators have described differences in chemical composition, physical characteristics, and biological activity between asphalt fumes collected in the field and those generated in the laboratory. The relevance of these differences in ascribing adverse health effects in humans is unknown. Data from studies in humans indicate that CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 65 x some workers exposed to asphalt fumes are at an elevated risk of lung cancer; however, it is uncertain whether this excess is related to asphalt and/or other carcinogens in the workplace. Although carcinogenic PAHs have been identified in asphalt fumes at various worksites, the measured concentrations and the frequency of their occurrence have been low. Based on evaluation of these data, the following conclusions were drawn regarding the carcinogenicity of asphalt under several conditions of use: • Data regarding the potential carcinogenicity of paving asphalt fumes in humans are limited. Only one study identified B(a)P in field fumes, but it was unclear whether paving asphalt fumes were the source of the B(a)P. Chrysene has been identified only in laboratory- generated paving asphalt fumes. The available data from studies in humans have not provided consistent evidence of carcinogenic effects in workers exposed to asphalt fumes during paving operations. No animal studies have examined the carcinogenic potential of either field- or laboratory-generated samples of paving asphalt fume condensates. Although genotoxicity assays (but no carcinogenicity assays) using laboratory-generated and field- generated (storage tank paving asphalt) fumes have been conducted, only the laboratory- generated fumes were genotoxic. Therefore, NIOSH concludes that the collective data currently available from studies on paving asphalt provide insufficient evidence for an association between lung cancer and exposure to asphalt fumes during paving. The available data, however, do not preclude a carcinogenic risk from asphalt fumes generated during paving operations. • The results from epidemiologic studies indicate that roofers are at an increased risk of lung cancer, but it is uncertain whether this increase can be attributed to asphalt and/or to other exposures such as coal tar or asbestos. Data from experimental studies in animals and cultured mammalian cells indicate that laboratory-generated roofing asphalt fume con- densates are genotoxic and cause skin tumors in mice when applied dermally. Furthermore, a known carcinogen, B(a)P, was detected in field-generated roofing fumes. The collective health and exposure data provide sufficient evidence for NIOSH to conclude that roofing asphalt fumes are a potential occupational carcinogen. • The available data indicate that although not all asphalt-based paint formulations may exert genotoxicity, some are genotoxic and carcinogenic in animals. No published data examine the carcinogenic potential of asphalt-based paints in humans, but NIOSH concludes that asphalt-based paints are potential occupational carcinogens. Current data are considered insufficient for quantifying the acute and chronic health risks of exposure to asphalt, asphalt-based paint, or asphalt fumes and vapors. However, data from at least two studies of acute effects are currently being evaluated to determine their usefulness in deriving an REL. Additional studies of workers exposed to asphalt fumes, vapors, and aerosols (e.g., during paving, roofing, and painting operations) are needed to better characterize exposures and to evaluate the risk of chronic disease, including lung cancer. Also required are experimental animal studies that use laboratory generation methods to produce fumes and vapors representative of asphalt roofing and paving operations. Until the results of these studies become available, NIOSH recommends minimizing possible acute or chronic health effects from exposure to asphalt, asphalt fumes and CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 66 xi vapors, and asphalt-based paints by adhering to the current NIOSH REL of 5 mg/m3 during any 15- min period and by implementing the following practices: •Prevent dermal exposure. •Keep the application temperature of heated asphalt as low as possible. •Use engineering controls and good work practices at all work sites to minimize worker exposure to asphalt fumes and asphalt-based paint aerosols. •Use appropriate respiratory protection (see Appendix C). CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 67 xiv SELECTED ABBREVIATIONS AC asphalt cement AI Asphalt Institute AREC Asphalt Roofing Environmental Council ARMA Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers’ Association ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials B(a)P benzo(a)pyrene CAS Chemical Abstracts Service CI confidence interval DNA deoxyribonucleic acid FHWA Federal Highway Administration GC/FID gas chromatography with flame ion- ization detector GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spec- trometry GM geometric mean HMA hot-mix asphalt HMW highway maintenance workers HPLC high-performance liquid chro- matography IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer LC liquid chromatography NAPA National Asphalt Pavement Asso- ciation NMR nuclear magnetic resonance NMRD nonmalignant respiratory disease OR odds ratio PAC polycyclic aromatic compound PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PEFR peak expiratory flow rate PMR proportional mortality ratio REL recommended exposure limit RR relative risk RTECS Registry of Toxic Effects of Chem- ical Substances SCE sister chromatid exchange SEM standard error of mean SIR standardized incidence ratio SMR standardized mortality ratio STEL short-term exposure limit TLV®threshold limit value TPA 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13- acetate TWA time-weighted average VOC volatile organic compound cm centimeter ggram g/mL grams per milliliter hr hour in/ft inches per foot L/min liters per minute mg milligram mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter min minute mL milliliter mV millivolt ng/cm2 nanograms per square centimeter nm nanometer sec second °C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit % percent wt % weight percent µg microgram µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter µL microliter CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 68 xv GLOSSARY OF TERMS Aggregate: Graduated fragments of hard, inert mineral material that are mixed with asphalt. Aggregate includes sand, gravel, crushed stone, and slag [Stein 1980]. Asphalt (CAS number 8052-42-4): The product of the nondestructive distillation of crude oil in petroleum refining; it is a dark brown to black cement-like semisolid or solid. Depending on the crude oil used as a feedstock, the distillation residuum may be further processed, typically by air blowing (sometimes with a catalyst) or solvent precipi- tation, to meet performance specifications for individual applications [AI 1990b]. It is a mixture of paraffinic and aromatic hydro- carbons and heterocyclic compounds contain- ing sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen [Sax and Lewis 1987]. Asphalt cement: Asphalt that is refined to meet specifications for paving, roofing, in- dustrial, and special purposes [AI 1990b]. Asphalt, cutback: An asphalt liquefied by the addition of diluents (typically petroleum solvents). Cutback asphalts are used in both paving and roofing operations depending on whether a paving or roofing asphalt is lique- fied [AI 1990b; Roberts et al. 1996; Speight 1992a]. Asphalt, emulsified: A mixture of two nor- mally immiscible components (asphalt and water) and an emulsifying agent (usually soap, but may be starch, glue, gum, colloidal clay, or other materials with similar properties) that allows the asphalt and water to mix. Emul- sified asphalts are either cationic (electro- positively charged micelles containing asphalt molecules or anionic (electro-negatively charged micelles containing asphalt mole- cules) depending on the emulsifying agent. Emulsified asphalts are used for seal coats on asphalt pavements, built-up roofs, and for other waterproof coverings. Emulsified asphalts are also called asphalt emulsions [AI 1990b; Roberts et al. 1996; Speight 1992a; Stein 1980]. Asphalt fumes: The cloud of small particles created by condensation from the gaseous state after volatilization of asphalt [NIOSH 1977a]. Asphalt-based paints: A specialized cutback asphalt product that can contain small amounts of other materials such as lampblack, aluminum flakes, or mineral pigments. They are used as a protective coating in water- proofing operations and other similar ap- plications [AI 1990b]. Asphalt, hot mix (HMA): Paving material that contains mineral aggregate coated and cemented together with asphalt cement [AI 1990b]. Asphalts, liquids: These are asphalts that are liquids at ambient temperatures. Liquid asphalts include cutback and emulsified asphalts [Roberts et al. 1996; Speight 1992a]. Asphalt, mastic: A mixture of asphalt and fine mineral material in such proportions that it may be poured hot into place and compacted by hand-troweling to a smooth surface [AI 1990b]. It is similar to hot-mix asphalt, but it is a finer aggregate. Asphalt, oxidized (blown or air-refined) [CAS number 64742-93-4]: Asphalt treated by blowing air through it at elevated temper- atures to produce physical properties required for the industrial use of the final product. Oxidized asphalts are typically used in roofing operations, pipe coating, undersealing for Portland cement concrete pavements, hy- draulic applications, membrane envelopes [AI 1990b], and the manufacture of paints [Speight 1992a]. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 69 xvi Asphalt, roofing: Asphalt that is refined or processed to meet specifications for roofing. Asphalt, paving: Asphalt that is refined to meet specifications for paving. Bitumen: The term more commonly used in Europe to refer to asphalt. Coal tar: A tar that contains polycyclic aromatic compounds and is produced by the destructive distillation of bituminous coal [Bingham et al. 1980]. Distillation of coal-tar produces a variety of compounds such as coal tar pitch, creosote, and other chemicals or oils [NIOSH 1977b]. It is used in roofing, roads, waterproofing, paints, pipe coatings, sealants, insulation, and pesticides [Sax and Lewis 1987]. Coal tar pitch (CTP): A black or dark brown cementitious solid that is obtained as a residue in the partial evaporation or fractional dis- tillation of coal tar [Bingham et al. 1980]. CTP is used in coatings, paints, roads, roofing, coal briquettes, and sealants [Sax and Lewis 1987]. Coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPV): Volatile matter emitted into the air when coal tar, coal tar pitch, or their products are heated [NIOSH 1977b]. Fog coat: Light application of slow-setting asphalt emulsion diluted with water. Fog coats are used to renew old asphalt surfaces and seal small cracks and surface voids [Stein 1980]. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorization of agents as to their carcinogenicity: Group 1—The agent is carcinogenic to humans. Group 2A—The agent is probably carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B—The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans. Group 3—The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. Group 4—The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. Penetration macadam: Roadway consisting of a liquid asphalt sprayed onto a coarse ag- gregate (usually crushed gravel, slag, or stone) of uniform size [Stein 1980]. Polycyclic aromatic compound (PAC): A class of chemical compounds that contains two or more fused benzenoid rings. This class of compounds includes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and hete- rocyclic derivatives where one or more of the carbon atoms in the benzenoid rings have been replaced by a heteroatom of nitrogen (N-PAC), oxygen (O-PAC), or sulfur (S- PAC) [Vo-Dinh 1989]. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH): A class of chemical compounds that only contain carbon and hydrogen in two or more fused benzenoid rings [Vo-Dinh 1989]. Prime coat: Application of a viscous liquid asphalt by spraying onto an absorbent surface. It is used to prepare an untreated base for an asphalt overlay. The prime penetrates the base, filling voids, and hardens the top so that the asphalt overlay will bond [Stein 1980]. Seal coat: A liquid asphalt treatment used to waterproof and improve the texture of an asphalt wearing surface. Many seal coats are covered with an aggregate [Stein 1980]. Slurry seal: A mixture of a slow-setting emul- sified asphalt, fine aggregate, and mineral fil- ler with enough water added to form a slurry [Stein 1980]. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 70 xvii Surface treatments: The addition of an asphaltic material to any road surface, with or without a covering of aggregate, that increases the thickness of the surface by less than 1 inch [Stein 1980]. Tack coat: A light application (usually by spraying) of a liquid asphalt cement to an existing pavement so that a bond can form with the new asphalt pavement [FAA 1991]. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 71 ASPHALT FUMES Description: Asphalt fumes have been defined by NlOSH (I) as the nimbose effusion of small, solid particles created by condensation from the vapor state after volatilization of asphalt. In addition to particles, a cloud of fume may contain materials still in the vapor state. The major constituent groups of asphalt are asphaltenes, resins, and oils made up of saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons. The asphaltenes have molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 2,600, those of the resins fall in the range of 370 to 500, and those of the oils in the range of 290 to 630. Asphalt has often been confused with tar because the two are similar in ap- pearance and have sometimes been used interchangeably as construction ma- terials. Tars are, however, produced by destructive distillation of coal, oil or wood whereas asphalt is a residue from fractional distillation of crude oil. The amounts of benzo(a)pyrene found in fumes collected from two dif- ferent plants that prepared hot mix asphalt ranged from 3 to 22 ng/m3; this is approximately 0.03% of the amount in coke oven emissions and 0.01% of that emitted from coal-burning home furnaces. Code Numbers: (Petroleum asphalt fumes) CA 8052-42-4 DOT Designation: - Synonyms: None. Potential Exposure: Occupational exposure to asphalt fumes can occur dur- ing the transport, storage, production, handling, or use of asphalt. The wm- position of the asphalt that is produced is dependent on the refining process applied to the crude oil, the source of the crude oil, and the penetration grade (viscosity) and other physical characteristics of the asphalt required by the consumer. The process for production of asphalt is essentially a closed-system distilla- tion. Refinery workers are therefore potentially exposed to the fumes during loading of the asphalt for transport from the refinery during routine main- tenance, such as cleaning of the asphalt storage tanks, or during accidental spills. Most asphalt is used out of doors, in paving and roofing, and the workers exposure to the fumes is dependent on environmental conditions, work prac- tices, and other factors. These exposures are stated to be generally intermittent and at low concentrations. Workers are potentially exposed also to skin and eye contacts with hot, cut-back, or emulsified asphalts. Spray application of cut- back, or emulsified asphalts may involve respiratory exposure also. Because of the nature of the major uses of asphalt and asphalt products, it is not possible to determine accurately the number of workers potentially exposed to asphalt fumes in the United States, but an estimate of 500,000 can be derived from estimates of the number of workers in various occupations in- volved. Permissible Exposure Limits in Air: Occupational exposure to asphalt fumes shall be controlled so that employees are not exposed to the airborne particu- lates at a concentration greater than 5 mg/m3 of air, determined during any 15-minute period. ACGlH gives a tentative STEL of 10 mglm3 as of 1983184. Occupational exposure to asphalt fumes is defined as exposure in the work- place at a concentration of one-half or more of the recommended occupa- tional exposure limit. If exposure to other chemicals also occurs, as is the case when asphalt is mixed with a solvent, emulsified, or used concurrently with CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 72 98 Handbook of Toxic and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens other materials such as tar or pitch, provisions of any applicable standard for the other chemicals shall also be followed. Determination in Air: A gravimetric method is recommended for estimation of the air concentration of asphalt fumes (A-1). When large amounts of dust are present in the same atmosphere in which the asphalt fume is present, which may occur in road-building operations, the gravimetric method may lead to errone- ously high estimates for asphalt fumes, and to possibly undeserved sanctions and citations for ostensibly exceeding the environmental limit for asphalt fumes or nuisance particulates. NIOSH recommends (1) that where the resolution of such problems becomes necessary, a more specific procedure which involves solvent extraction and gravimetric analysis, be employed for the determination of asphalt fumes. The best procedure now available seems to be ultrasonic agitation of the filter in benzene and weighing of the dried residue from an aliquot on the clear ben- zene extract. NIOSH is attempting to devise an even more specific method for asphalt fumes for use under such conditions. Permissible Concentration in Water: No criteria set. Routes of Entry: Inhalation of dusts and fumes. Skin exposure can cause thermal burns from hot asphalt. Harmful Effects and Symptoms: The principal adverse effects on health from exposure to asphalt fumes are irritation of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae and the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. Hot asphalt can cause burns of the skin. In animals, there is evidence that asphalt left on the skin for long periods of time may result in local carcinomas, but there have been no reDorts of such effects on human skin that can be attributed to as- phalt alone. No reliable reports of malignant tumors of parenchymatous organs due to exoosure to as~halt fumes have been found. but there has been no ex- tensive st;dy of this 'possible consequence of ocdupationa~ exposure in the asphalt industry. Points of Anack: Skin, respiratory system. Medical Surveillance: Details of recommended preplacement and periodic physical examinations and record-keeping have been set forth by NIOSH (1). Personal Protective Methods: Em~lovees shall wear a~~ro~riate protective . . clothing, including gloves, suits, boots, face shields (8-inch kiiimum); or other clothing as needed, to prevent eye and skin contact with asphalt. Respirator Selection: (1) Engineering controls shall be used when needed to keep concentrations of asphalt fumes below the recommended exposure limit. The only conditions under which compliance with the recommended exposure limit may be achieved by the use of respirators are: (a) During the time required to install or test the necessary engineer- in0 controls. IDI Fur OPC~J~~U~S SUC~ d6 nonroutlne rnalnrenance or repa r acr~vjt~es ca.r nq brlcf exmsurc at eoncenrrar ons above the dnvtronmenra limit. Ic) During emergencies when concentrations of asphalt fumes may exceed the environmental limit. (2) When a respirator is permitted by (1) above, it shall be selected from a list of respirators approved by NIOSH. Disposal Method Suggested: Incineration. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 73 Karaman A, Pirim I Exposure to bitumen fumes and genotoxic effects on Turkish asphalt workers. Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2009, Apr 14 :1-6. Objective: Bitumen fumes consist essentially of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives, some of which are known to be carcinogenic or cocarcinogenic in humans. The aim of this study was to investigate exposure to asphalt fumes among Turkish asphalt workers and determine whether any effects could be detected with genotoxic tests. Study Design. The study included 26 asphalt workers and 24 control subjects. Sister chromatid exchange (SCE) and micronucleus (MN) were determined in peripheral lymphocytes. Urinary 1-hydroxypyrene (1- OHP) excretion was used as a biomarker of occupational exposure to PAHs. Results: The asphalt workers had a significant increase in SCEs and MN (for each, p < 0.001). A positive correlation existed between the duration of exposure and rates of SCE or MN frequencies (r = 0.49, p < 0.05; r = 0.53, p < 0.05, respectively). The concentration of 1-OHP in urine was higher for the asphalt workers than for the controls (p < 0.001). However, we found that there was no statistically significant correlation between the urinary 1-OHP concentration and SCEs or MN frequencies (r = 0.25, p > 0.5; r = 0.17, p > 0.5, respectively). Conclusions: This study shows that Turkish asphalt workers have an increased exposure to PAHs from bitumen fumes, and genotoxic effects could be detected by SCEs and MN tests. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a910409985~db=all~jumptype=rss CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 74 Studies of carcinogenicity of bitumen fume in humans American Journal of Industrial Medicine Volume 43, Issue 1, Date: January 2003, Pages:1-2 Paolo Boffetta, Igor Burstyn Abstract Since antiquity humans have used bitumen, either naturally occurring or derived from crude oil [Broome and Hobson, 1973], and it may have been the binding material described for bricks used in the construction of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11, 3).Chemically, bitumen is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons consisting of both aliphatic and aromatic compounds, some of which bear nitrogen, oxygen, or sulfur functional groups [Broome and Hobson, 1973]. This material has been in widespread use since the industrial revolution. The first bituminous road was built in 1810 in Lyon, France. Large-scale industrial use of bitumen began with the exploitation of natural bitumen deposits in Trinidad, with the first commercial shipment arriving in England in the 1840s. Bitumen's main use, in terms of volume, has been in paving, as a binder for inorganic fillers in asphalt mixes. According to conservative estimates, there are at present approximately 4000 asphalt mixing plants in western Europe. A typical mixing plant employs five to ten individuals. These plants produce approximately 275 million tons of hot and 10 million tons of cold asphalt annually. Asphalt mixes are applied to road surfaces by approximately 100,000 paving crewmen across western Europe. Other important uses of bitumen are in waterproofing and roofing. Thus, assessment of the health hazards of bitumen fumes may have far-reaching industrial, economic, and public health implications. Of specific concern is the potential carcinogenicity of bitumen fume inhalation. In 1985 and 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer [IARC, 1985, 1987] evaluated extracts of steam-refined and air-refined bitumen carcinogenicity in experimental animals and classified them as possible human carcinogens (IARC Group 2B), while for undiluted bitumen, the evidence of carcinogenicity in humans was inadequate (IARC Group 3).Meta-analysis identified and reveiwed the epidemiological studies informative of cancer hazard in asphalt workers [Partanen and Boffetta, 1994]. However, the aggregated data could not explicitly address effects of bitumen fumes. Agent-specific exposure data were lacking, conjectured, or controversial, leaving open a number of questions with regard to the interpretation of the results. The aggregated results suggested an increased risk of cancers of the lung, (relative risk 1.8; 95% confidence interval 0.8-1.0).The main uncertainty in the assessment of previous epidemiological data arises from the inability to exclude the possibility of confounding by concurrent use of both coal tar a recognized carcinogen, and bitumen by pavers, roofers, and waterproofers [IARC, 1985, 1987]. The voluntary discontinuation of coal tar use by the asphalt industry in western Europe during the past few decades presented an opportunity to discover whether it is likely that bitumen exposure per se is carcinogenic [Partanen et al., 1995]. To address this question, a historical cohort of asphalt workers was assembled by IARC in eight countries (Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and Israel) in order to obtain diverse exposure profiles and a sufficient number of cases for the main health outcome of interest: lung cancer. Detailed results on the mortality of the workers included in the international study have been published in an IARC Internal Technical Report [Boffetta et al., 2001]. In this issue of the Journal, several papers report the key findings on cancer mortality [Boffetta et al., 2003a,b], which provide the most complete assessment of cancer hazards among workers exposed to bitumen fumes. It is a complex task to organize and conduct international occupational cohort studies. This project was a successful example of collaboration between academic research groups, public bodies, and industrial associations. Among other challenges, it overcame the Babel of multiple languages. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 75 Acute symptoms associated with asphalt fume exposure among road pavers American Journal of Industrial Medicine Volume 49, Issue 9, Date: September 2006, Pages: 728-739 Allison L. Tepper, Gregory A. Burr, H. Amy Feng, Mitchell Singal, Aubrey K. Miller, Kevin W. Hanley, Larry D. Olsen Background: Although asphalt fume is a recognized irritant, previous studies of acute symptoms during asphalt paving have produced inconsistent results. Between 1994 and 1997, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) evaluated workers at seven sites in six states. Methods: NIOSH (a) measured exposures of asphalt paving workers to total (TP) and benzene- soluble particulate (BSP), polycyclic aromatic compounds, and other substances; (b) administered symptom questionnaires pre-shift, every 2 hr during the shift, and post-shift to asphalt exposed and nonexposed workers; and (c) measured peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR) of asphalt paving workers when they completed a symptom questionnaire. Results: Full-shift time-weighted average exposures to TP and BSP ranged from 0.01 to 1.30 mg/m3 and 0.01 to 0.82 mg/m3, respectively. Most BSP concentrations were <0.50 mg/m3. Asphalt workers had a higher occurrence rate of throat irritation than nonexposed workers [13% vs. 4%, odds ratio (OR) = 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2-13]. TP, as a continuous variable, was associated with eye (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.12-1.60) and throat (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.06-1.85) symptoms. With TP dichotomous at 0.5 mg/m3, the ORs and 95% CIs for eye and throat symptoms were 7.5 (1.1-50) and 15 (2.3-103), respectively. BSP, dichotomous at 0.3 mg/m3, was associated with irritant (eye, nose, or throat) symptoms (OR = 11, 95% CI: 1.5-84). One worker, a smoker, had PEFR-defined bronchial lability, which did not coincide with respiratory symptoms. Conclusions: Irritant symptoms were associated with TP and BSP concentrations at or below 0.5 mg/m3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16917829 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 76 American Journal of Industrial Medicine 25279-289 f 1994) Toxic Health Effects Including Reversible Macrothrombocytosis in Workers Exposed to Asphalt Fumes Robert M. Chase, MD, FRcP(c), Gary M. tiss, MO, MS, FRCP(C), Donald C. Cole, Mo, FRCP(C1, and Bonnie Heath, MHSC We .investigated an outbreak of irritative and neurotoxic symptoms associated with exposure to asphalt fumes in a commercial lighting factory: 17 symptomatic female workers were clinically assessed including hematologic resting. When compared with a laboratory reference pup (n = 107). the workers' mean platelet volume (MPV) was significantly higher and mean platelet count was lower (p = 0.013 and p = 0.048, respectively). Five monrhr later. the factory's ventilation system was ~~ubstantially mcd- ified. Follow-up dessments 6 months posrmodificarion on 15 of the original workers documented a significant decline in acute symptoms and a lowering of the subjects' mean MPV towards normal (p = 0.0007 by paired t-test). The tindings suggest that reversible m~crothromboc~tosis (enlarged plateleu) can occur among symptomatic workers exposed to aspbait fumes. 0 19% wiley-~irt. ins. Key words: blood platelet disorders. hematological parameters, occupational exposure, asphalt, benzene, biologicai effect, follow-up studies '- Lakeshore Area Multiservice project (LAMP) Occupational Health Pt~gram (LOHP) is a community-based occupational health service in Toronto. Ontario, C:s- ada funded by the provincial sovernment., In kllarch 1988, several employees frpm a local plant came to LOHP with, complaints of nausea, headache, fatigue, skin rashes, and eye. noie and throat irri- tation. The onset of these symptoms coincided with the introduction of a new asphalt formulation in the manufacturing process in November 1987. The plant employs approximately 200 production employees,mostly female, manufacuring fluorescent . ballast boxes and coils for fluorescent and high intensity lighting. The production area - . is open. without pmitions (approximately 250 x 200 ft with 20 f ceilings). In 1987. gened ventilation (fan) was used to disperse fumes from the soldering stations and, Occupational Health Rosm. Meshore Area Eilulri-service Projecr (R.IL1.C.. D.C.C.): Health and Safety Studies Unir. Ontario Eilinisq oi Labour (G.M.L.): Community Health Bnnch. Onrsriq Ministv of Healrh (B.H.I. Ontxio. C+nada. Address reprinr requcsrs tu Roben hl. Chase. MD. L.A.IL1.P. Occupatioml Health Pmgmrn. 185 Fifth Sucec. kiobicok. Onrsrio. Canada IL18V 725. Accepred lor publication Eilarch 15. 1993. O 1994 Wiley-Liss. Inc. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 77 http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=0DA9C8CD-F1F6-975E-7631B117EEDF8C3D LITERATURE REVIEW OF HEALTH EFFECTS CAUSED BY OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ASPHALT FUMES This Interim Review Produced by NIOSH in Support of Nomination to the National Toxicology Program 6/23/97 CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES* *Information obtained from Sax and Lewis [1987]. ________________________ Chemical name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asphalt CAS number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8052-42-4 Synonyms Asphaltum; asphalt cement; asphalt emulsion; bitumen; blown asphalt; cutback asphalt; oxidized asphalt; petroleum asphalt; petroleum bitumen; road asphalt Physical state at room temperature Black or dark-brown solid or viscous liquid Solubility in water at 20°C Insoluble Solubility in organ solvents Carbon disulfide Definition of asphalt - Asphalt production is dictated by performance specifications rather than by a specific chemical composition. To meet those specifications, the residual product of petroleum distillation may be further processed, usually by air- blowing or solvent precipitation. The precise chemical composition and physical properties of the resulting products are influenced by the composition of the original crude petroleum oil and the manufacturing processes. The basic chemical components of crude petroleum oil include paraffinic, naphthenic, and aromatic hydrocarbons as well as heterocyclic molecules containing sulfur, oxygen, and nitrogen [AI 1990a]. The proportions of these chemical components may vary significantly because sources of crude petroleum oil occur in various locations throughout the world involving different geologic formations. As a result of these variations, crude oils from different fields may vary in their chemical composition and sometimes variations in chemical composition of crude oils can be found among different locations in the same oil field [Puzinauskas and Corbett 1978]. Therefore, no two asphalts are chemically identical, and chemical analysis defining the precise structure and size of the individual molecules found in asphalt is almost impossible. Asphalt fumes are defined as the cloud of small particles created by condensation from the gaseous state after volatilization of asphalt. Fumes from some asphalts have been analyzed and their chemical compositions are presented in Table 1 [AI 1975] and Table 2 [Reinke and Swanson 1993]. PRODUCTION, USE, AND POTENTIAL FOR OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Paving asphalts are manufactured principally by simple atmospheric distillation or by atmospheric distillation followed by fractionation under vacuum. They may also be manufactured by solvent precipitation and mild partial air-blowing. Roofing asphalts are generally produced by atmospheric or vacuum distillation followed by air-blowing [NAPA 1994]. Most of the asphalt produced in the United States is used in paving and roofing. Only about 1% is used for waterproofing, dampproofing, insulation, paints, and other activities [AI 1990a]. The National Occupational CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 78 Exposure Survey (NOES) [NIOSH 1983] estimates that during the period 1981-83, more than 473,000 U.S. employees were potentially exposed to asphalt. Table 3 presents the 10 industries and the 10 occupations (excluding janitors) with the most employees potentially exposed to asphalt. Paving Asphalt Of the three types of asphalt products used in the construction of paved surfaces in the United States: asphalt paving cements (hot-mix asphalt or HMA), cutback asphalts, and asphalt emulsions, HMA (asphalt mixed with mineral aggregate) accounts for 85% of the total used. Cutback asphalts and asphalt emulsions are used for road sealing and maintenance, and account for 4% and 11% respectively, of the total used. Currently, about 4,000 HMA facilities and 7,000 paving contractors employ nearly 300,000 employees in the United States [AI 1990a]. Roofing Asphalt Four types of asphalt (I through IV) are used in roofing products in the United States. The type of asphalt used is determined by the grade or slope of the roof. For example, Type I roofing asphalt, often referred to as "dead level," has a low softening point and is used on surfaces with a grade of 0.5 inch per foot or less. Types II and III roofing asphalt are typically used on roofs with slopes of 0.5 to 1.5 and 1 to 3 inches per foot, respectively. Type IV roofing asphalt (a hard asphalt with a high softening point) is used on roofs with a grade of 2 to 6 inches per foot [ASTM 1992]. In 1990, an estimated 46,000 on-roof employees were exposed to asphalt fumes in the United States, and about 6,000 to 12,000 employees were exposed in approximately 120 plants manufacturing asphalt roofing shingles and rolls and modified bitumen2 roofing products [AI 1990a]. General Exposure The major route of occupational exposure to asphalt fumes (e.g., paving, roofing, and asphalt-based paints) is by inhalation; they may also be absorbed through the skin. A summary of representative information on the occurrence of asphalt fumes in the workplace is presented in Table 3 and Table 4. Dermal exposure to asphalt fumes has been examined using skin wipes (see Table 5). Skin wipe samples were collected at various worksites (e.g., refineries, HMA facilities, paving and roofing sites, and roofing manufacturers) and analyzed for PAHs [AI 1991]. The PAH concentrations determined from postshift samples ranged from 2.2 to 520 ng/cm2 (see Appendix A). Exposure Limits The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) currently has no permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asphalt fumes. In 1989, OSHA announced that it would delay a final decision to establish a PEL for asphalt fumes because of complex and conflicting issues submitted to the record [54 Fed. Reg. *2641]. The PEL originally proposed to reduce the potential carcinogenic risk of occupational exposure to asphalt fumes was 5 mg/m3 as an 8-hr TWA. In 1992, OSHA published another proposed rule for asphalt fumes that included a PEL of 5 mg/m3 (total particulates) for general industry and for the maritime, construction, and agricultural industry [57 Fed. Reg. 26182]. Comments are still being received by OSHA and a final decision is pending. In a 1977 criteria document, NIOSH established a recommended exposure limit (REL) of 5 mg/m3 as a 15 min ceiling for up to a 10-hr work shift, during a 40-hr workweek, to protect against irritation of the serous membranes of the conjunctivae and the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract [NIOSH 1977a]. In 1988, NIOSH testimony to the Department of Labor and OSHA recommended that asphalt fumes be considered a potential occupational carcinogen [NIOSH 1988]. This recommendation was based on information presented in the 1977 criteria document [NIOSH 1977a] and a study by Niemeier et al. [1988] showing that exposure to condensates of asphalt fumes caused skin tumors in two strains of mice. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value (TLV®) is 5 mg/m3 as an 8-hr TWA and was recommended to reduce the risk of possible carcinogenicity [ACGIH 1991]. Australia, Belgium, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have also limited occupational exposures to asphalt fumes to 5 mg/m3 as an 8-hr TWA. Additionally, the United Kingdom has established a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 10 mg/m3. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 79 Germany currently rates asphalt fumes as "suspected of having a carcinogenic potential [ILO 1991]. STUDIES OF GENOTOXICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY (ANIMALS) Mutagenic Effects The five fractions of laboratory-generated roofing asphalt fume condensates and unfractionated asphalt fumes used by Sivak et al [1989] (see description of Sivak study under Carcinogenic Effects) were examined for their mutagenic potential in Salmonella. Fractions A through E combined, and fractions B and C were positive; fractions, A, D, and neat asphalt fumes were weakly positive; and fraction E was negative [NTP 1990]. Positive responses required exogenous metabolic activation. The same fractionated asphalt fume condensates from the Sivak et al.study [1989] were also tested using a modified Ames assay [ Blackburn and Kriech 1990] and the results were comparable to those of the NTP [1990] study. Eight asphalt fume samples collected on teflon filters at HMA plants as part of an Interagency Agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) were tested for mutagenic activity in a Salmonella mutagenicity assay. Preliminary results indicate that there was no mutagenic activity in the whole fume fraction; however, results of 2 of the 8 samples were inconclusive [Olsen, personal communication]. Two Type III roofing asphalts representing different crude oil sources , one of which was similar to the asphalt air- blown using a ferric chloride catalyst and used by Niemeier et al.[1988] and Sivak et al. [1989]; 18 paving asphalts (representing 14 crude oil sources and various process conditions); and Type I coal tar pitch; and their fume condensates were examined not only for mutagenic activity in a modified Ames assay, but also for PAH content [Machado et al. 1993]. The fume generation temperature of all roofing materials was either 232 or 316°C and that of all paving materials was 163°C (one sample was heated to 221°C). The results of the modified Ames assay are presented in Table 6. The data indicate that all samples tested exerted mutagenic activity; however, the mutagenic responses of the asphalt fume condensates were approximately 100-fold less than the coal tar pitch samples and weak to moderate in potency [Machado et al. 1993]. Responses for the positive control group were all within the expected ranges. Results of analyses for PAH content, measured by HPLC fluorescence, of the roofing and paving asphalts, coal tar pitch, and their fume condensates were as follows [Machado et al. 1993]. Concentrations of individual PAHs in samples of asphalt and asphalt fume condensates were less than 50 parts per million by weight (ppm), while most concentrations of individual PAHs in roofing (232°C or 316°C) and all concentrations in paving (163°C, except for one sample at 221°C) asphalts, whole or fumes, were less than 10 ppm and 2 ppm, respectively. Concentrations of individual PAHs in the coal tar pitch samples were 100- to 1000- fold higher than in the roofing and paving samples. Benzo[a]pyrene (BP) was detected in all samples examined; the maximum concentrations of BP in whole asphalt, whole coal tar pitch, asphalt and coal tar pitch fume condensates were approximately 6 ppm, 18,000 ppm, 0.1 - 2.8 ppm, and 250-480 ppm, respectively. Although PAH content correlated with mutagenicity indices for some samples, for others it did not. The investigators concluded that the data suggest that crude oil source along with processing conditions had some influence on the PAH content of the various materials tested [Machado et al.1993]. Reinke and Swanson [unpublished data 1993] examined the relationship between field-, 146-157°C (295-314°F), and laboratory-generated, 149°C (300°F) and 316°C (600°F), asphalt fume condensates by comparing their chemical content (i.e., PAHs and sulfur heterocyclics) and mutagenic potential. The asphalt tested was a straight run, vacuum distilled 85/100 penetration grade asphalt derived from a blend of Canadian heavy, sour crudes. The field asphalt fume condensates were collected from the head space above an asphalt storage tank, stored between 146-157°C (295-314°F), at a HMA production plant into a cold trap system for about 36 continuous hours. The results of the chemical analyses (GC-MS) for PAHs and sulfur heterocyclics and the modified Ames assay are provided in Table 7 and summarized in Table 8. The data indicate that field-generated asphalt fume condensates exerted a MI of >0 and < 1, while fumes generated in the laboratory at 149°C (300°F) and 316°C (600°F), exerted MIs of 5.3 and 8.3, respectively. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 80 Chromosomal Aberrations Condensates of Type I and Type III roofing asphalt fumes generated in the laboratory (same methodology as Sivak et al. 1989) at temperatures (316 ± 10C) similar to actual roofing operations caused a dose-related increase in micronucleus (MN) formation in exponentially growing Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (V79 cells) [Qian et al. 1995]. The results of immunofluorescent antibody staining showed that both roofing asphalt fume condensates induced mainly kinetochore-positive MN (68-70%). The authors suggested that Type I and Type III roofing asphalt fume condensates are aneuploidogens and possess some clastogenic activities. Reinke and Swanson [1993] also tested 3 asphalt fume condensates (field and lab-generated) in a chromosomal aberration assay and the results were negative. The authors reported that the absence of positive findings may be explained by the fact that this assay has not as yet been optimized for petroleum asphalt fumes. Intercellular Communication The five asphalt roofing fume fractions used by Sivak et al. [1989] were tested for inhibition of intercellular communication, i.e., one of several proposed mechanisms of tumor promotion. The inhibition of intercellular communication by a tumor promoter is believed to isolate an initiated or preneoplastic cell from the growth regulatory signals of surrounding cells, leading to the development of neoplasia. All fractions inhibited intercellular communication in chinese hamster lung fibroblasts (V79) cells in Toraason et al. [1991]. The greatest activity was in fraction D and E and the least activity in fraction A. Similarly, Wey et al. [1992] examined the effect of these fractions on intercellular communication in human epidermal keratinocytes. All asphalt roofing fume fractions inhibited intercellular concentrations in a concentration dependent fashion. Carcinogenic Effects Since publication of the NIOSH criteria document [NIOSH 1977a], there have been reports of carcinogenicity following dermal applications of laboratory-generated asphalt roofing fume condensates [Niemeier et al. 1988; Sivak et al. 1989] and raw roofing asphalt [Sivak et al. 1989]. Additional data from these studies are summarized in detail in Appendix B. Niemeier et al. [1988] investigated the tumorigenicity of fume condensates generated at 232°C (450°F) and 316°C (601°F) from Types I and III roofing asphalt and Types I and III coal-tar pitch through topical applications to the skin of male CD-1 and C3H/HeJ mice. A total of 48 groups of 50 mice each (1 strain) received applications of cryogenically collected fume condensates singly and in combination (Type III asphalt and Type I coal-tar pitch, both generated at 316°C [601°F]) biweekly for 78 weeks (18 months). Half of each group was exposed to simulated sunlight to determine whether photochemical reactions might alter the carcinogenic activity. Analysis of the skin painting solutions by GC/MS revealed that the solutions containing coal-tar pitch fume condensates had higher concentrations of select PAHs than the solutions containing asphalt fume condensates. The authors report that analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) indicated that the asphalt fume condensate was <1% aromatic and >99% aliphatic, whereas the coal-tar pitch condensate was >90% aromatic. BaP was selected as a marker compound based on correlations of BaP concentrations and carcinogenicity. Tumors were produced by fume condensates of both types of asphalt (see Tables 9 and 10) and both types of coal-tar pitch. The majority of benign tumors were papillomas; the majority of malignant tumors were squamous cell carcinomas. The fume condensates from the coal-tar pitches had slightly greater carcinogenic activity than the fume condensates from the asphalts, but the total amount of select PAHs or BaP needed to produce a 50% tumor incidence was much smaller for the asphalt fume condensates (PAHs, 0.58 to 2.63 mg; BaP, less than or equal to 13.6 mg) than for the coal-tar pitch fume condensates (PAHs, >24.5 to >57.4 mg; BaP, 354 to 405 mg). Tumor response to the coal- tar pitch fume condensates was comparable with that of the BaP controls, based on the total dosage of BaP administered. Both strains of mice exposed to asphalt fumes had significantly (P=0.01) more tumors than the control groups, although the C3H/HeJ mice demonstrated a greater tumorigenic and carcinogenic response to both asphalt and coal-tar pitch fume solutions than did the CD-1 mice. The C3H/HeJ mice showed a significant increase (P=0.01; Fisher-Irwin exact test) in tumorigenic response for both types of condensed asphalt fumes generated at 316°C (601°F) compared with those generated at 232°C (450°F); a similar increase was noted only for Type III coal-tar CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 81 pitch fumes. Overall, simulated sunlight inhibited tumorigenic responses. The authors speculated that this inhibition may have resulted from the photo-oxidation or photodestruction of the carcinogenic components of the test materials. Niemeier et al. [1988] concluded that the enhanced carcinogenic activity of the asphalt fume condensates may have been due to their high concentration of aliphatic hydrocarbons, which have cocarcinogenic effects. They also concluded that higher generation temperatures may have further increased that hazard. Finally, Niemeier et al. [1988] concluded that the carcinogenic activity of the coal-tar pitch fume condensates (but not that of the asphalt fume condensates) could be explained by their BaP (or PAH) contents. Sivak et al. [1989] heated Type III roofing asphalt at 316°C, generated fume condensates, and separated them by high-performance liquid chromatography [Belinky et al.]. The chemical composition of the fractions (A through E) is provided in Table 11. Raw asphalt, neat asphalt (whole or unfractionated condensate) fume, the reconstituted asphalt fume, and the asphalt fractions, individually and in various combinations, were then tested for their carcinogenic and tumor-promoting activity. Fractions A through E were dissolved in a 1:1 solution of cyclohexane and acetone to yield concentrations proportional to their presence in the neat asphalt fume condensate, i.e., 64.1%, 8.3%, 10.5%, 11.5% and 5.6%, respectively, and were applied biweekly to 40 groups of male C3H/HeJ mice and 2 groups of Sencar mice (30 male mice per group) for 104 weeks (2 years). A single initial treatment of BaP followed by individual treatments with fractions A, D, and E was used to test the tumor-promoting activity of the asphalt fume condensate. The cocarcinogenicity of fractions A, D, and E was tested with three different doses of BaP. Fractions A, D, and E were used because they were the fractions Sivak et al. [1989] deemed most likely to exhibit cocarcinogenic or tumor-promoting activity based on their chemical compositions, i.e., primarily long chain alkanes and phenol compounds. Two groups of male Sencar mice were included to allow for possible genetic variation and sensitivity to tumor promotion. One of the two groups of Sencar mice was treated with neat asphalt fume (whole condensate), and the other was used as an unexposed solvent control. The negative control group was treated with cyclohexane and acetone, and the positive control groups were treated with three different concentrations of BaP. Table 12 presents only the treatment groups which induced histopathologically confirmed carcinomas (malignant tumors), the number of carcinomas per group, the number of mice with histologically confirmed carcinomas, and the average time (in weeks) to carcinoma development. The raw asphalt and neat asphalt fume induced carcinomas (local skin cancers) in 3 of 30 and 20 of 30 C3H/HeJ mice, respectively. Fractions B and C induced carcinomas in 10 of 30 and 17 of 30 C3H/HeJ mice, respectively, while fractions A, D, and E failed to induce any carcinomas when applied singly. All the combinations of the fractions induced tumors only if they included B or C; combinations A and D; A and E; and A, D, and E failed to induce any tumors. Furthermore, fractions A, D, and E failed to act as either tumor promoters or cocarcinogens. Fourteen of the 30 Sencar mice treated with the asphalt fume condensate developed carcinomas. As noted previously, only fractions B and C applied singly and in combinations elicited tumor responses. Fractions containing B and C PACs including PAHs, S-PACs, and O-PACs such as alkylated aryl thiophenes, alkylated phenanthrenes, alkylated acetophenones, and alkylated dihydrofuranones. Fraction B contained most of the S-PACs, and only a few were carried over to fraction C. Fraction C contained a small amount of 4-ring PACs (refer to previous Table). Sivak et al. [1989] stated the need for additional cocarcinogenesis and tumor-promotion experiments using a wider range of experimental variables, further chemical separation of fractions B and C, more short-term genotoxicity assays, and additional carcinogenicity assays to identify biologically active materials in the roofing asphalt fume condensates. Table 10 lists the positive tumor responses among the groups of mice studied. The raw asphalt (diluted with a 1:1 solution of cyclohexane and acetone to a final concentration of 0.5 g/ml) produced carcinomas in 3 of 30 C3H/HeJ mice. The neat asphalt fume (diluted with a 1:1 solution of cyclohexane and acetone to a final concentration of 0.5 g/ml) produced carcinomas in 20 of 30 C3H/HeJ mice. Fraction B produced local skin cancers (carcinomas) in 10 of 30 male C3H/HeJ mice, and fraction C produced local skin cancers (carcinomas) in 17 of 30 male C3H/HeJ mice. Fractions A, D, and E failed to produce any carcinomas when applied singly. Of the other combinations of fractions, all produced tumors except the following: A and D; A and E; and A, D, and E. None of the groups of mice with the initiating dose of 200 mg of BaP developed tumors, but 7 of the 9 groups tested for cocarcinogenicity developed carcinomas (see Table 10). Fourteen of the 30 Sencar mice treated with neat asphalt fumes (whole condensate) produced carcinomas, and 1 mouse in the Sencar solvent control group produced 1 tumor (sarcoma). Mice in the CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 82 C3H/HeJ solvent control group failed to develop tumors, whereas the C3H/HeJ mice in two BaP control groups developed skin tumors (see 0.01% and 0.001% BaP groups in Table 10). Sivak et al. [1989] observed no tumor responses with the three roofing asphalt fractions (A, D, and E) they considered most likely to exhibit cocarcinogenic or tumor-promoting activities based on their aliphatic hydrocarbon, alcohol, and phenol contents. Treatment with the combined fractions did not produce any synergistic effects. However, tumor responses were elicited by other fractions (B and C) that contained PACs including PAHs, S-PACs, N-PACs, and O-PACs such as alkylated aryl thiophenes, alkylated phenanthrenes, alkylated phenylethanones, and alkylated dihydrofuranones. Fraction B contained most of the S-PACs, and only a few were carried over to fraction C, which contained mainly O-PACs. Because the O-PACs may result from the air-blowing/oxidation refining process common among roofing asphalts, they may be present only in roofing asphalt. If such is the case, the refining process could be altered to eliminate the O-PACs and possibly the carcinogenicity of fraction C. Sivak et al. [1989] stated the need for additional cocarcinogenesis and tumor-promotion experiments using a wider range of experimental variables, further chemical separation of fractions B and C, more short-term genotoxicity assays, and additional carcinogenicity assays to identify biologically active materials in the roofing asphalt fume condensates. HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS ACUTE Asphalt fumes are irritants to the mucous membranes of the eyes and respiratory tract; hot asphalt can also cause burns of the skin [NIOSH 1977]. It has been reported that irritant effects on the respiratory tract can possibly progress to such nonmalignant lung diseases as bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma [Hansen, 1991; Maizlish et al. 1988]. Workers engaged in road repair and construction reported symptoms of abnormal fatigue, reduced appetite, eye irritation, and laryngeal/pharyngeal irritation [Norseth et al. 1991]. CHRONIC Considerable data from epidemiological studies on workers exposed to asphalt fumes during paving and roofing operations, and during the production of asphalt, have become available since the publication of the NIOSH criteria document on asphalt [NIOSH 1977]. The mortality experience of Danish mastic asphalt workers [Hansen 1989a; Hansen 1991] and Swedish asphalt road pavers [Engholm 1991] was investigated (see Table 13). Hansen [1989a] reported that the mastic asphalt workers, when compared with the total male Danish population , experienced significantly increased mortality from cancers of the digestive and respiratory systems, with standardized incidence rates (SIR) of 227 (95% confidence interval of 142-344) and 195 ( 95% confidence interval of 236-493), respectively. The SIR for all malignant neoplasms was 195 (95% confidence interval of 153-244). Overall, Hansen [1989a] reported that she observed a three-fold increase in the expected number of lung cancers in the mastic asphalt workers compared with the general Danish population. For an assessment of the induction of primary lung cancer Hansen divided the cohort into subcohorts based on birth year because it was necessary to determine the number of employees potentially exposed to coal tar pitch, which had been added to mastic asphalt during World War II. The SIRs for primary lung cancer were then determined to range from 632 (for employees aged 40 to 54) to about 300(for employees aged 64 to 89). Although smoking histories of the cohort were unknown, an inquiry was made in 1976 into the smoking habits of mastic asphalt workers and a pattern emerged. Based on the approximate rates that were calculated, Hansen suggested that smoking could not account for the three-fold increase she had observed. When Hansen [1991] updated her cohort and adjusted for smoking and urbanization, she reported that the statistically significant (P<0.01) increase in cancer mortality among mastic asphalt workers remained. The SIR for lung cancer mortality was 224 (95% CI, 145-330). Criticisms by Wong et al. [1992] and Kreich et al.] 1991] of the Hansen studies [1989a; 1991] are provided in the comments section of Table 13 and include the following: possible exposure to coal tar pitch and inadequate adjustment for smoking and urbanization. Engholm et al. reported [1991] the occurrence of lung (SIR of 207) and stomach cancers (SIR of 207) in Swedish asphalt road pavers (see Appendix C). Data on previous and current smoking histories had been collected and were used in determining the relative risk (RR) for lung cancer. The RR for lung cancer was on the order of 2 before adjustment for smoking, and it was on the order of 3 after adjustment for smoking. Despite the short follow-up period ( an average of 11.5 years) and the very young age (42 years) of the cohort, the authors concluded that this CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 83 cohort exhibited a slight excess of lung cancer. However, in a later submission to NIOSH [Engholm and Englund 1993], the results of an update based on the inclusion of three additional years of follow-up were reported. Engholm [1993] indicated that: 1) with the additional follow-up, all measures of any cancer risk were not statistically signigicant; 2) the study results may reflect some selection bias; 3) exposure of the cohort is in doubt. Results of a proportionate mortality study of California highway maintenance workers [Maizlish et al. 1988] and a long-term mortality study of Minnesota highway maintenance workers [Bender et al. 1989] are also presented in Table 13. Maizlish et al.[1988] determined that the increased mortality from all malignant neoplasms for their cohort was not statistically significant. Additionally, exposure measurements and data on tobacco or alcohol consumption of the cohort were unavailable. Bender et al. [1989] reported that workers with 30 to 39 years of work experience had a statistically significant (P<0.01) SMR of 425 (95% CI, 170-870) for leukemia deaths. The authors concluded, however, that they were unable to relate these findings to asphalt exposure. After additional study of this cohort (case-control studies, cytogenetic studies, updated chhort mortality, and personal air monitoring effort, the Minnesota Department of Health [1993] concluded that it was unlikely that the excess leukemia mortality observed among the highway maintenance workers was job-related. Only one study is available regarding the mortality experience of roofers [Engholm et al. 1991]. During their investigation of asphalt road pavers in Sweden, these investigators also examined a cohort of roofers (see Appendix C). After adjustment for smoking, the RR for lung cancer in roofers was on the order of 6. The data indicated that though the number of cases was small, there was a lung cancer excess among roofers [Engholm et al. 1991]. Even though the authors acknowledged that the short follow-up period (11.5 years) and the young age (42 years) of the cohort were too short for the normal latency period of a potential carcinogen, they concluded that an excess of lung cancer existed among roofers. In 1993 Engholm and Englund presented to NIOSH information based on their three-year follow-up of Enghom et al. 1991. They concluded that results of the follow-up study " did not permit any final conclusions" regarding health risks of the respective cohorts. Partanen and Boffetta [1994] conducted a review and meta-analysis of the epidemiologic studies regarding cancer risk in asphalt workers and roofers. They concluded that existing data are insufficient to make a judgment with regard to asphalt. Most epidemiologic studies for lung carcinogenicity (as well as other cancer sites ) are either too non-specific for exposure (e.g., highway maintenance workers , census occupational data), or confounded by coal tar exposure. In 1987, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated the available studies involving asphalt fumes [IARC 1987] and concluded that the carcinogenicity of bitumens (shich include asphalt ) is unclassifiable in humans. NIOSH investigators (Kyle Steenland) agree with the review of Partanen and Bofetta [1994]. In addition to the studies' deficiencies already enumerated, insufficient latency for workers exposed to asphalt is also noted. Deficiencies of the Hansen [1989, 1991] studies include the unresolved controversy concerning possible exposure to coal tar, possible selection biases, and the appropriate beginning of person-time at risk. REFERENCES ACGIH [1991]. Asphalt fumes. In: Documentation of the threshold limit values and biological exposure indices, 6th ed. Vol. I. Cincinnati, OH: American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, pp. 95-96. AI [1990a]. Report to OSHA and NIOSH: Status of Asphalt Industry Steering Committee research program on the health effects of asphalt fumes and recommendation for a worker health standard. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute. AI [1991]. Final report. Asphalt industry cross sectional exposure assessment study. Text and Appendix A. Lexington, KY: Asphalt Institute, July 12, 1991 (prepared by Radian Corporation). ASTM [1992]. 1992 Annual book of ASTM standards. Part 15-road, paving, bituminous materials; traveled surface characteristics. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Belanger PL, Elesh E [1979]. Health hazard evaluation report: Kentile Floors, Inc., Chicago, Illinois. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. HHE 78-73-612, NTIS No. PB-80-195-308. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 84 Bender AP, Parker DL, Johnson RA, Anderson WK, Crozier MA, Williams AN, et al. [1987]. The Minnesota highway maintenance worker mortality study: 1945-1984. Preliminary report. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, Section of Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology, No Report No. Bender AP, Parker DL, Johnson RA, Scharber WK, Williams AN, Marbury MC, Mandel JS [1989]. Minnesota highway maintenance worker study: cancer mortality. Am J Ind Med 15:545- 556. Burgaz S, Bayhan A, Karakaya AE [1988]. Thioether excretion of workers exposed to bitumen fumes. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 60(5):347-349. Engholm G, Englund A, Linder B [1991]. Mortality and cancer incidence in Swedish road paving asphalt workers and roofers. Health Environ 1:62-68. Hansen ES [1989a]. Cancer incidence in an occupational cohort exposed to bitumen fumes. Scand J Work Envir Health 15(2):101- 105. Hansen ES [1989b]. Cancer mortality in the asphalt industry: a 10-year follow-up of an occupational cohort. Br J Ind Med 46(8):582- 585. Hansen ES [1991]. Mortality of mastic asphalt workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 17:20- 24. Hansen ES [1992]. Cancer mortality and incidence in mastic asphalt workers. Author's reply [letters]. Scand J Work Environ Health 18:135-141. Hatjian BA, Edwards, JW, Williams FM, Harrison J, Blain PG [1995a]. Risk assessment of occupational expousre to bitumen fumes in the road paving industries. Paper presented at the 1995 Pacific Rim Conference on Occupational and Environmental Health, Sydney, Australia, October4-6, 1995. Hatjian BA, Edwards, JW, Harrison J, Williams FM, Blain PG [1995b]. Ambient, biological and biological effects monitoring of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Toxicol letters 77:271-279. Herbert R, Marcus M, Wolff MS, Perera FP, Andrews L, Godbold JH, et al. [1990]. Detection of adducts of deoxyribonucleic acid in white blood cells of roofers by 32P-postlabeling. Scand J Work Environ Health 16:135-143. ILO [1991]. Occupational Exposure Limits for Airborne Toxic Substances, 3rd edition. Values of Selected Countries Prepared from the ILO-CIS Data Base of Exposure Limits. Geneva: International Labour Organization, pp. 34-35. Lafuente A, Mallol J [1987]. Urinary thioethers in workers exposed to asphalt: an impairment of glutathione S-transferase activity? J Tox Envir Health 21(4):533-534. Lee BM, Baoyun Y, Herbert R, Hemminki K, Perera FP, Santella RM [1991]. Immunologic measurement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon-albumin adducts in foundry workers and roofers. Scand J Work Environ Health 17:190-194. Lunsford RA, Cooper CV [1989]. Characterization of petroleum asphalt fume fractions by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Machado ML, Beatty PW, Fetzer JC, Glickman AH, McGinnis T [1993]. Evaluation of the relationship between PAH content and mutagenic activity of fumes from roofing and paving asphalts and coal tar pitch. Fund Appl Toxicol 21:492-499. Maizlish N, Beaumont J, Singleton J [1988]. Mortality among California highway workers. Am J Ind Med 13(3):363-379. Minnesota Department of Health [1993]. The Minnesota highway maintenance worker mortality study 1945-1989. Final report, May 1, 1993. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Department of Health, Chronic Disease and Environmental Epidemiology. Monarca S, Pasquini R, Scassellati Sforzolini G, Savino A, Bauleo FA, Angeli G [1987]. Environmental monitoring of mutagenic/carcinogenic hazards during road paving operations with bitumens. Intl Arch Occup Envir Health 59(4):393-402. NAPA [1994]. Information presented during a meeting on February 7, 1994, between M. Acott, T. Brumagin, L. Miller, N. Beckthalt representing the National Asphalt Pavement Association and J. Wess, R. Niemeier, and C. Ellison from the Divisions of Standards Development and Technology Transfer, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Niemeier RW, Thayer PS, Menzies KT, Von Thuna P, Moss CE, Burg J [1988]. A comparison of the skin carcinogenicity of condensed roofing asphalt and coal tar pitch fumes. In: Cooke M, Dennis AJ, eds. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons: A Decade of Progress. Tenth International Symposium. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 609-647. NIOSH [1977a]. Criteria for a recommended standard: occupational exposure to asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 78-106, NTIS Publication No. PB-277-333. NIOSH [1983b]. National occupational exposure survey (NOES) 1981-1983: estimated total and female employees, actual CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 85 observation and trade-name exposure to asphalt and asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluation and Field Studies, Surveillance Branch. Unpublished data base; provisional data as of 7/1/90. NIOSH [1988]. NIOSH testimony to the Department of Labor: Statement of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the public hearing on occupational exposure to asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NTP [1990]. NTP Results Report. Results and status information on all NTP chemicals produced from NTP Chemtrack System. Washington, DC: National Toxicological Program. Puzinauskas VP, Corbett LW [1978]. Differences between petroleum asphalt, coal-tar asphalt, and road tar. College Park, MD: Asphalt Institute. Research Report No. 78-1, 31 pp. Qian HW, Ong T, Whong WZ [1996]. Induction of micronuclei in cultured mammalian cells by fume condensates of roofing asphalt (submitted for publication in Am J Ind Med). Sax NI, Lewis RJ, eds. [1987]. Hawley's condensed chemical dictionary. 11th ed. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., pp. 102-103; 290; 320. Sivak A, Menzies K, Beltis K, Worthington J, Ross A, Latta R [1989]. Assessment of the cocarcinogenic/promoting activity of asphalt fumes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science. NIOSH Contract No. 200-83-2612, NTIS Publication No. PB-91-110-213. Tharr DG [1982a]. Health Hazard Evaluation Report: Roofing Sites, Rochester and Buffalo, NY. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. HETA 81-432-1105, NTIS No. PB-84-141-860/A02. Tharr DG [1982b]. Health hazard evaluation report: McAlpin's Department Store, Cincinnati, Ohio. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH Report No. HETA 82-034-1121. Toraason M, Bohrman JS, Elmore E, Wyatt G, McGregor D, Willington SE, et al. [1991]. Inhibition of intercellular communication in Chinese hamster V79 cells by fractionated asphalt fume condensates. J Toxicol Environ Health 34:95-102. Wey HE, Breitenstein MJ, Toraason MA [1992]. Inhibition of intercellular communication in human keratinocytes by fractionated asphalt fume condensates. Carcinogenesis 13(6):1047-1050. Wolff MS, Herbert R, Marcus M, Rivera M, Landrigan PJ, Andrews LR [1989]. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) residues on skin in relation to air levels among roofers. Arch Envir Health 44(3):157-163. Wong O, Bailey WJ, Amsel J [1992]. Cancer mortality and incidence in mastic asphalt workers [letters]. Scand J Work Environ Health 18:133-135. Zey JN [1992a]. Letter of July 10, 1992, from J.N. Zey, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, to Forrest L. Cash, Quality Control Department, Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Zey JN [1992b]. Letter of July 27, 1992, from J.N. Zey, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, to Blair B. Bury, Vice President of Construction, Midwest Asphalt Corporation, Hopkins, Minnesota. Zey JN [1992c]. Letter of August 14, 1992, from J.N. Zey, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, to Gerald D. Jordan, Branch Manager, APAC Mississippi, Inc., Greenville, Mississippi. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 86 100 | www.epidem.com Epidemiology  •  Volume 24, Number 1, January 2013 BRIEF REPORT Background: We investigated a possible association between pha- ryngeal/tonsillar carcinoma and mixed carcinogen exposures in an asphalt roll company in Italy that used asbestos until 1979, when a new factory was built using a different production process. Methods: We evaluated all workers involved in the entire produc- tion history of the company, divided into two subcohorts based on exposure status (workers in the original factory, 1964–1979, and those who worked only in the new factory, 1980–1997). We ascertained the vital status of the study population in February 2001. Results: Among the subset of workers in the earlier subcohort, there were five deaths from pharyngeal/tonsillar carcinoma for a standard- ized mortality ratio of 21 (95% confidence interval = 8.8–51). No cases were recorded among workers hired after 1979. Conclusion: The increased standardized mortality ratio for this rel- atively rare cancer among workers exposed before 1979 may have been due to carcinogenic exposures at the plant. (Epidemiology 2013;24: 100–103) Pharyngeal carcinoma is relatively uncommon, most often present in men in the 6th or 7th decade of life.1 Recently, its incidence has increased in developing countries.2 Tobacco and alcohol are important risk factors, along with environ- mental, genetic, and viral factors.3–7 Occupational associa- tions between exposure to well-defined carcinogens, such as asbestos or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and cancer of the pharynx have been suggested by several stud- ies.8–11 We investigated a possible association of pharyngeal/ tonsillar carcinoma and mixed carcinogen exposures in a fac- tory that produced asphalt rolls containing asbestos. METHODS Study Design We conducted an occupational cohort study in which we evaluated all the workers—including subcontracted warehouse workers—involved in the 33-year production history of the company (based in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy) from its first day of production on 7 January 1964 until the closure of the plant on 7 February 1997. We ascertained the vital status of the study population on 7 February 2001. Information on the workplace and available exposure and health monitoring data is summarized in the eAppendix, http://links.lww.com/EDE/A627 (part 1). In 1979, the original factory was closed because of a fire, and the management agreed to eliminate asbestos from all production processes. Production of asphalt roofing rolls resumed in 1980 in a new factory constructed nearby and broadly in line with modern occupational health and safety standards. These changes allowed us to evaluate two subcohorts of workers based on exposure status: (1) those who started work between January 1964 and June 1979, who were exposed to the old factory in which asbestos was used; (2) those who worked only in the new factory (ie, after June 1979). We assessed cause-specific mortality experienced by these two subcohorts, calculating standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for carcinoma of the lip, oral cavity, and pharynx (international classification of disease ICD-9, 140–149). Data Collection and Statistical Analysis We used company records to extract job history informa- tion of all workers. For each cohort member, we sent survey cards to local government offices to ascertain vital status and current residence or, for those who had died, date, place, and Submitted 10 June 2011; accepted 28 September 2012. From the aSection of Occupational Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Geriatrics and Nephrology, Alma Mater Studiorum-Univer- sity of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; bOccupational Health Unit, Bologna Local Health Authority, San Giorgio di Piano, Bologna, Italy; cDepart- ment of Biology and Biotechnology “Charles Darwin,” La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy; dDepartment of Statistic, Univer- sity of Florence, Florence, Italy; eHarvard University, Environmental Health and Epidemiology Departments, Boston, MA; and fOccupa- tional Medicine Service, Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bolo- gna, Bologna, Italy. Supported by INAIL (Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infor- tuni sul Lavoro) Direzione Regionale Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, Italy; Regione Emilia-Romagna (Emilia-Romagna Regional Administration), Bologna, Italy; and the University of Bologna. The work of F.Z. was par- tially supported by the Epidemiology Master’s course at the University of Turin. The authors report no conflict of interests. Supplemental digital content is available through direct URL citations in the HTML and PDF versions of this article (www.epidem.com). This content is not peer-reviewed or copy-edited; it is the sole respon- sibility of the author. Correspondence: Stefano Mattioli, Unità Operativa di Medicina del Lavoro, Policlinico S. Orsola-Malpighi, via Pelagio Palagi 9, I-40138 Bologna, Italy. E-mail: s.mattioli@unibo.it. Copyright © 2012 by Lippincott William and WilkinsISSN: 1044-3983/13/2401-0100DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318276cc95 Carcinoma of the Pharynx and Tonsils in an Occupational  Cohort of Asphalt Workers Francesca Zanardi,a Renata Salvarani,b Robin M.T. Cooke,a Roberta Pirastu,c Michela Baccini,d David Christiani,e Stefania Curti,a Alessandro Risi,f Anna Barbieri,a Giuseppe Barbieri,b Stefano Mattioli,a and Francesco Saverio ViolanteaEpidemiology 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318276cc95 Bitumen, Asbestos, and Pharyngeal Cancer Zanardi et al 00 00 2012 00 00 2012 Gomathy CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 87 Epidemiology  •  Volume 24, Number 1, January 2013 Bitumen, Asbestos, and Pharyngeal Cancer © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.epidem.com | 101 cause of death. We requested copies of death certificates for the deceased and embarkation details for workers who had left the country. In each subcohort, subgroups of workers were catego- rized by occupational exposure characteristics, based on job descriptions contained in factory inspection reports: blue-collar production sector workers (including subcontracted warehouse workers); other blue-collar workers; white-collar workers. This assessment was made without knowledge of case status. We used Student’s t test to compare the mean age at initial employment and the mean duration of employment between the two subcohorts. We tabulated observed cause- specific deaths alongside expected numbers specific for sex, age, and calendar period (5-year classification); we then cal- culated the SMR in the entire cohort, based on mortality rates in the resident population of the Emilia-Romagna region.11 For cause-specific categories of interest (death from all causes; all cancers; cancer of the lip, oral cavity, and pharynx; gastric car- cinoma; lung cancer; cardiovascular diseases), we also calcu- lated SMR by subcohort (before or after 1979), occupational exposure (production-line, other blue-collar, white-collar), and latency. For all estimates, we used the Poisson distribution to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs).12 All analyses were conducted using Stata 11.0 (Stata Corporation, Texas, TX). RESULTS Study Cohort The study cohort comprised 415 workers, including 52 subcontracted warehouse workers who were occupationally exposed to the production sector. The majority of workers (71%, n = 295) were in the subcohort who worked in the old factory. Table 1 shows the occupational characteristics of the subcohorts. Mean age at initial employment was 29.3 years in both subcohorts. Mean number of working years was greater in the earlier subcohort (overall, 10.6 vs. 3.6 years; among production-line workers, 11.6 vs. 4.5 years). Outcome Vital status at the end of follow-up is reported in Table 2; loss to follow-up was 1.2% (5/415). Forty deaths were recorded during a total of 9948 person-years of follow- up. Cancer was the most common underlying cause of death (63%, 25/40). Carcinoma of the pharynx/tonsils caused 5 (25%) of the cancer-related deaths (eTable 1, http://links. lww.com/EDE/A627); although health officials were aware of three cases, an additional two cases were uncovered during survival data collection. Cause-specific SMRs for the entire cohort are presented in eTable 2 (http://links.lww.com/EDE/ A627). Among the group of workers exposed to the produc- tion sector where asbestos was used, the SMR for carcinoma of the lip, oral cavity, and pharynx was 21 (95% CI = 8.8–51; Table 3). We also recorded an approximately threefold excess mortality rate for gastric cancer, but no evidence of increased mortality from lung cancer or cardiovascular diseases. Mantel-Haenszel estimates of rate ratios adjusted for latency and cause-specific SMRs according to latency are presented in eTables 3 and 4 (http://links.lww.com/EDE/A627). TABLE 1. Occupational Characteristics of the Entire Cohort and the Two Main Subcohorts Entered Employment Before June 1979 Employed Only After June 1979 Men No. Women No. Total No. Men No. Women No. Total No. Blue-collar workers exposed to the production line 104 0 104 41 0 41 Production-line workers 67 0 67 26 0 26 Smelters 17 0 17 5 0 5 Pasters 11 0 11 0 0 0 Rollers 37 0 37 21 0 21 Shredding machine operators 2 0 2 0 0 0 Subcontracted warehouse workers (handling raw materials)37 0 37 15 0 15 Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 60 3 63 17 1 18 End-product warehouse workers (not handling raw materials)9 0 9 6 0 6 Machinery operators 11 0 11 0 0 0 Factory maintenance staff 21 0 21 1 0 1 Othera 19 3 22 10 1 11 White-collar workers 75 53 128 46 15 61 Office clerks 21 35 56 13 3 16 Representatives 54 18 72 33 12 45 Total 239 56 295 104 16 120 aSupervisors, technicians, maintenance workers, canteen workers, office cleaning staff, resident porter/night watchman. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 88 Zanardi et al Epidemiology  •  Volume 24, Number 1, January 2013 102 | www.epidem.com © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins DISCUSSION Cohort analysis of a small cluster of cases of a rare cancer in a single factory can be hypothesis-generating. The SMR was so likely increased (a 21-fold excess) that we have grounds to believe that the associations observed are unlikely to be due to chance, even if it is not clear which of the various occupational exposures could be implicated. The study had been initiated after specific concerns about widespread chronic inflammatory diseases of the upper airways among the production-line workers and a cluster of cases of cancer of the pharynx/tonsils. All five subjects affected by cancer of the pharynx/tonsils were among the well-defined production-line workers who experienced, in the old factory, heavy industrial coexposure to a mixture of chrys- otile asbestos fibers, bitumen fumes, solvents, PAH, and other dusts, all of which can be carcinogenic.13–18 Multiple chemical factors found in bitumen fumes could combine to influence the onset of neoplastic disease.19–21 As in most historical cohort studies, we were unable to distinguish the work-related etiologic contribution from individual fac- tors1,8,22 such as smoking and low socioeconomic status. All five workers shared a relatively young age of onset, within 10 TABLE 2. Vital Status on 7 February 2001 and Person-Years  of Follow-Up Men (n = 343) Women (n = 72) Overall (n = 415) Alive 298 72 370 Dead 40 —40 From known causes 39 —39 From unknown cause 1 —1 Lost to follow-up 5 —5 Person-years 8,156 1,792 9,948 Up to 40 years of age 4,612 1,543 6,155 After 40 years of age 3,544 249 3,793 TABLE 3. Cause-Specific SMR in the Two Subcohorts Stratified by Occupational Category (Reference Population, Regione Emilia-Romagna) Entered Employment Before June 1979 Employed Only After June 1979 Observed Expected SMR (95% CI)Observed Expected SMR (95% CI) All causes Overall 34 40.8 0.8 (0.6–1.2)6 5.5 1.1 (0.5–2.4) Blue-collar workers on the production line 26 22.5 1.2 (0.8–1.7)3 2.0 1.5 (0.5–4.6) Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 6 11.5 0.5 (0.2–1.2)1 0.6 1.7 (0.2–11.9) White-collar workers 2 6.8 0.3 (0.1–1.2)2 2.9 0.7 (0.2–2.8) All cancers Overall 23 15.7 1.5 (1.0–2.2)2 1.9 1.1 (0.3–4.2) Blue-collar workers on the production line 22 8.6 2.6 (1.7–3.9)1 0.7 1.4 (0.2–9.9) Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 1 4.5 0.2 (0.03–1.57)0 0.2 — White-collar workers 0 2.6 —1 1.0 1.0 (0.1–7.2) Lip, oral cavity, and pharynx cancer Overall 5 0.4 11.4 (4.8–27.4)0 0.06 — Blue-collar workers on the production line 5 0.2 21.1 (8.8–50.7)0 0.02 — Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 0 0.1 —0 0.01 — White-collar workers 0 0.1 —0 0.03 — Stomach cancer Overall 5 1.6 3.0 (1.3–7.3)0 0.2 — Blue-collar workers on the production line 5 0.9 5.3 (2.2–12.8)0 0.06 — Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 0 0.5 —0 0.01 — White-collar workers 0 0.2 —0 0.09 — Trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer Overall 5 5.0 1.0 (0.4–2.4)0 0.6 — Blue-collar workers on the production line 4 2.9 1.4 (0.5–3.7)0 0.2 — Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 1 1.5 0.7 (0.1–4.8)0 0.1 — White-collar workers 0 0.7 —0 0.3 — Circulatory system diseases Overall 7 13.0 0.5 (0.3–1.1)0 1.3 — Blue-collar workers on the production line 3 7.8 0.4 (0.1–1.2)0 0.5 — Nonproduction-line blue-collar workers 4 3.7 1.1 (0.4–2.9)0 0.1 — White-collar workers 0 1.5 —0 0.7 — CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 89 Epidemiology  •  Volume 24, Number 1, January 2013 Bitumen, Asbestos, and Pharyngeal Cancer © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins www.epidem.com | 103 years of first being hired at the plant. By contrast, no further case of cancer of the pharynx or oral cavity emerged among the subcohort of workers exposed only to the new factory, in which there was little or no use of asbestos and presumably much lower levels to bitumen fumes, solvents, PAH, and dusts. Absence of excess rates of lung cancer, especially in the “exposed” subcohort in which the follow-up was longer, is in line with a large International Agency for Research on Cancer study, which showed no evidence of bitumen causing lung cancer.23 Similarly, the apparent excess in gastric cancer among the production-line workers in the exposed subcohort could either reflect the increased risks reported for asphalt workers in general24–26 or be related to a particular coexposure. A healthy worker effect was observable in both subcohorts. However, the hypothesis that the particular conditions found in the original factory constituted a risk factor for pharyngeal/ oral cancer (and probably also gastric cancer) is reinforced by the observation that within the highly exposed production-line workers of the earlier subcohort, cause-specific SMRs were remarkably increased for these particular cancers, but not for other causes of death such as cardiovascular disease. Study Limitations The limited exposure information did not allow dose- response analysis and hampered formulation of more detailed etiologic hypotheses. The small number of person-years and the relatively short follow-up impeded assessment of tumors with a long latency, such as mesothelioma. In summary, we observed a cluster of pharyngeal/ tonsillar carcinoma among workers exposed to the production sector of a factory producing asphalt rolls when asbestos was being used as a binding agent. The magnitude of the SMR for this rare type of cancer suggests that the events may not have been due to chance. Although it is unclear which mixed carcinogen exposures were implicated, these observations may be relevant to the etiology of pharyngeal/tonsillar carcinoma. Industrial cohort studies in settings in which asbestos was used in asphalt production could provide further information regarding the cancer-related risks associated with similar industrial mixed carcinogen exposures. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Chiara Scardoni for translation work. REFERENCES 1.Parkin DM, Whelan S, Ferlay J, Teppo L, Thomas DB. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Vol. VIII. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Sci Publ. No l55. 2002:364–365. 2.Franceschi S, Bidoli E, Herrero R, Muñoz N. Comparison of cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx worldwide: etiological clues. Oral Oncol. 2000;36:106–115. 3.IARC. Tobacco Smoking. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcino- genic Risks to Human. Vol. 38. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1986. 4.IARC. Alcohol Drinking. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 44. Lyon, France: International Agency for Re- search on Cancer; 1988. 5.IARC. Tobacco Smoking and Involuntary Smoking. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Human. Vol. 83. Lyon, France: Inter- national Agency for Research on Cancer; 2003. 6.IARC. Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol and 1-tert-Butoxy-2-propanol. Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 88. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2004. 7.Mucci L, Adami HO. Oral and pharyngeal cancer. In: Trichopoulos D, Adami HO, Hunter D, eds. Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2002:115–128. 8.Berrino F, Richiardi L, Boffetta P, et al. Milan JEM Working Group. Oc- cupation and larynx and hypopharynx cancer: a job-exposure matrix ap- proach in an international case-control study in France, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Cancer Causes Control. 2003;14:213–223. 9. Gustavsson P, Jakobsson R, Johansson H, Lewin F, Norell S, Rutkvist LE. Occupational exposures and squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, and oesophagus: a case-control study in Sweden. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55:393–400. 10.Marchand JL, Luce D, Leclerc A, et al. Laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer and occupational exposure to asbestos and man-made vitreous fi- bers: results of a case-control study. Am J Ind Med. 2000;37:581–589. 11.Straif K, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Baan R, et al. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. A review of human carcinogens–part C: metals, arsenic, dusts, and fibres. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:453–454. 12.Checkoway H, Pearce N, Kriebel D. Research Methods in Occupational Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2004. 13.Binet S, Pfohl-Leszkowicz A, Brandt H, Lafontaine M, Castegnaro M. Bitumen fumes: review of work on the potential risk to workers and the present knowledge on its origin. Sci Total Environ. 2002;300:37–49. 14.Boffetta P, Burstyn I. Studies of carcinogenicity of bitumen fume in humans. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:1–2. 15.Boffetta P, Burstyn I, Partanen T, et al. Cancer mortality among European asphalt workers: an international epidemiological study. I. Results of the analysis based on job titles. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:18–27. 16.Burstyn I, Randem B, Lien JE, Langård S, Kromhout H. Bitumen, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and vehicle exhaust: exposure lev- els and controls among Norwegian asphalt workers. Ann Occup Hyg. 2002;46:79–87. 17.Herrick RF, McClean MD, Meeker JD, Zwack L, Hanley K. Physical and chemical characterization of asphalt (bitumen) paving exposures. J Oc- cup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(suppl 1):209–216. 18.Wang J, Lewis DM, Castranova V, et al. Characterization of asphalt fume composition under simulated road paving conditions by GC/MS and micro- flow LC/quadrupole time-of-flight MS. Anal Chem. 2001;73:3691–3700. 19.Finkelstein MM. Asbestos-associated cancers in the Ontario refinery and petrochemical sector. Am J Ind Med. 1996;30:610–615. 20. Melius J. Asphalt–a continuing challenge. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:235–236. 21.Schulte PA. Gaps in scientific knowledge about the carcinogenic potential of asphalt/bitumen fumes. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;4(suppl 1):3–5. 22.Friborg JT, Yuan JM, Wang R, Koh WP, Lee HP, Yu MC. A prospective study of tobacco and alcohol use as risk factors for pharyngeal carcino- mas in Singapore Chinese. Cancer. 2007;109:1183–1191. 23.Agostini M, Ferro G, Olsson A, et al. Exposure assessment for a nested case-control study of lung cancer among European asphalt workers. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010;54:813–823. 24.Hansen ES. Cancer incidence in an occupational cohort exposed to bitu- men fumes. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1989;15:101–105. 25.Stücker I, Meguellati D, Boffetta P, Cénée S, Margelin D, Hémon D. Cohort mortality study among French asphalt workers. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:58–68. 26.Cocco P, Ward MH, Dosemeci M. Risk of stomach cancer associated with 12 workplace hazards: analysis of death certificates from 24 states of the United States with the aid of job exposure matrices. Occup Environ Med. 1999;56:781–787. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 90 Amtrkw Journal or lndustrlal McdiQnt 26,711-740 (1994) Cancer Risk In Asphalt Workers and Roofers: Revlew and Meta-Analysis of Epidemiologic Studies Tima Partmen, P~D, H64 and Pabio Boffetta, MD, HPH p-~ ~ - Twenly cpldemlolotogic smdics have dctnibed cancer risk in a~hzlr workers ind rwfcrs In Various coun~tics. A currant concern for rhcse workcrr is the prtnlinl tarcinoeeniciry posed by inhalation or bitumen fu~ner or dtrmal cxpoiure to hilumens. Bitumcnr SrC : Chemically diffcrcnt from many ~nrcinogcnic cool-mr based rnatcrirlr. Boh have bcrn . cmployed in rwd pavlng and ~Plcrpmatin;. We exan~incd and combined tk ~sults of . . . the cpidemioloplc srudiu c~nductcd on arphal~ worken and rooftrs. We cximincd the .'. .earn drk rcparatc! in rhre bmad job cue~h.ie:: 1) rmf:rr (cxpojcd lo blwmcc fumcs d prcvious r y ohen 10 coal-tar f~ms): 2) highway maintenance worken . (HhIWs) and mPd paven (uposcd to bi~nten fumes u well as possibly cod-ur fumcr pvioutly): and 3) rnisccllaneous nnd unspecified bitcmen!asphall workcrr. In roafcrr, .an incrtaced risk was suggested lor crnccrr of the lung (~ggregatcd relative rick 1.8. - 35% confidence Interval 1.5-2 1). slome:h (1.7, 1.1-2.5). nonrntl&nornr skin (4.0. "'; -6.8-12), md lcukcmio (1.7. 0.9-1.9). Some of ~hc cxccras may bt artributablc to - polycyclic knma~ic hydrocarbons (YAH) from co3i-rx producrs. Th: o~grcgurcd rela- livc nsks in md pvcrs and HMWi wcn: ronsi;icntIy lower than in roofers for canccz of the lun: (0.9. 0.g-l.Ol, stomach Ll.l.O.8-1.5). bladdcr (1.2. 0.7-1.8), skin (2.2, 1.2-3.71. and lcukcmias (1.3. 0.9-1.8). Their risk of kin ccn:er was signiricanll) . incnaicd. basti On onc study. Miscell;neour nnd unn,wcificl u;o<i;er$ had L significant cxccrs (1.5. 1.2-1.R) of lun: cancer. Thc durn ware poorly focustd io addles the carcinogcnici~y of bitumen lumcs. as cnninrrtd wlrh tardtrivcd cxposu~xs. For thc . proJpec1 of shedding morc li:ht nn the bltu~!rri,-canccr controversy. the Itnsibillly of 3 wcthl rn~lliccntcr cnhon IS currently king studird by the Internalions1 Agency for !&mh on Conccr (IARC), t I*N u.cq-!;ri. IN. Kt). words: asphall, bituln~.n. ur. ruoftrr, pavcri, cpirltrnl~lo~, cnnccr, re\icu. mcu-anal)rlr Unll of Anulyllrdl El~idctnit~lu:y. In~crnxrio~lnl Apcr~y Tor Rea:rch on Caactr. Lynn. Frrricc CT.P.. PH l . .-.,. Dcludmu~r t~f Epidcnl~ulo~y and L\l~l~,.\ulri.;lis~. In%B:utv of Occupstiond Hezllh. Helsinki. Finland TT.P.). Adtlrun wprlni mucstr lo Pmln Rnflctl:~. 1n::rnaiiowl A2ency Io: Rmv.xrch on Clllt.er. 150 Couis -. ~lbcn-1ho;aas. t'dY372 Lynn CcJcr 08. Fnncc. Abbrcvulinns: BaP, llcan~ In) mrcnc: Cl. cnn;~di.nue iolcvnl: COSCA\r:E. Oil Cunlp.knia' hf0FC'J.C . . Oryniutinn fur Envirn~:nicilral snJ I.lelllb Pr.l~c~\inn: DF, dc~riii of frc-dun:: E. csp-'c~cd oulllbcr u( txporcd cascs 1i.c.. uz:> Talli~lg lr sn orcupa~iotlu! txagci~): EAPA. European Arpknlt Pxvcrncr.: .: A.s.wia~ion: EUROUITVMU; Eump-un t)iuilr:n A.\rui.i;llirm: HMW. hi~huay in-inienunrc u.okc:: : (ARC, ln~cru~icnnl A;?ar.,. lor Rcrc;:xh os Csnccr: 0. ~~+<rrc*l numtxr of ciporcd caw (i,c.. ck.i . (allinf In un ttctup~i<rn:~l c;ttc:ory): Dl<. odds NIL!; PAM. polyc~clic zmnuiic hydmcarbon: PSI?; . pmprtional mnnpll~y rciin: RK. rcl~dsi',ri\\;: SIR, p:md~~dlzcd incidence ntio: SPIR. *iumdwJiwd nn<mn?lily nsio; TWA, rlcs?-wtiglucd avcr~~c. Apcplcd RI~ publit~tit~n Fcbruury 17. IYW. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 91 Kunda Park neighbours Search this siteAdmin ● HOME - Map, distances to asphalt plant ● Contact us ● Sitemap News ● NEWS ● News Archive Our elected representatives ● Our elected representatives say: Community Actions ● Petition to rezone Kunda Park to light industry ● Request for urgent moratorium Kunda park - general features ● The environment ● Still air Asphalt plants ● Our community concerns about asphalt ● Council vote on asphalt plant ● Risk of cancer/ illness from asphalt Link back to "Health" Science says cancers and illness are linked to asphalt and hot asphalt fumes: *********************** A powerpoint presentation on health and asphalt is available as an attachment at the bottom on this page.************************ There is a growing list of scientific papers that conclude exposure to hot asphalt emissions can significantly increase the incidence of many types of cancers above background. There are no studies on children near asphalt plants, although there are various reasons (age, metabolic rate, body proportions, activity levels, growth rates) why children can be more susceptible to carcinogens than adults. Like many long term studies on cancer, it may take a generation or so before we are aware of the full consequences and dangers of exposure to certain chemicals from asphalt plants. We expect the evidence for asphalt to lag several decades behind that for cigarette smoking (only recently did "big tobacco" stop refuting the health risks from smoking). Many new scientific papers now find a connection between cancer and asphalt, but some of the early and some current studies do not detect associations or strong associations. It is universally agreed that exposure to chemicals in asphalt causes cancer in animals. Components of asphalt fumes, including benzene are highly carinogenic (we even know how these chemicals biologically induce cancer). Overall, the fact that we are now seeing evidence of increased cancer risk in humans from a number of studies on asphalt is troubling and points to even stronger associations as populations age and we get more data. So if some papers say yes, and some no, about asphalt causing cancer in humans, which do we go with? Some studies say several fold increase, some say 10-50% increase in cancer rates. What do we do? Toss a coin, take a bet about our children's future? If we bet no effect, and find out that these negative papers were funded by asphalt industries, then we've failed to take a precautionary approach for our children. If we bet on low levels of cancer rates, then how many collateral deaths are worth it for the sake of having an asphalt plant close by? Overall, all agree that asphalt fumes contain strongly carcinogenic material (Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs). The disagreements seem to be over the level of exposure that causes a specific and public health risk. This is why the issue of still air over Kunda Park especially in winter is such an important issue, as the still air and temperature inversions will greatly magnify the concentration of carcinogens, and their risk. Risk of cancer/ illness from asphalt - Kunda Park neighbours http://sites.google.com/site/kundaparkneighbours/asphalt-plants-benzene-and-cancer (1 of 8) [8/4/2011 4:31:02 PM] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 92 Risk of cancer/ illness from asphalt - Kunda Park neighboursAsphalt Plants● Health● Public submissions on asphalt plant● Complaints about existing Boral and other Australian sites● USA Asphalt experience● Groups trying to stop asphalt plants● "pro" asphalt plant arguments● "con" asphalt plants arguments● Boral, their application, acq. of Allens● Alternatives: sites/ mobile plantsConcrete plants● Wagner concrete plant - and the environment ● Boral concrete plant ● new environment and health concerns about concrete plants Golf Course ● Golf courses - and the environment ● Golf Course - example submission ● Golf Course News Not safe at any level? Agencies set "safe levels" such as 5 parts per billion in drinking water for benzene (benzene is a carcenogen produced by asphalt plants). However, biological researches are starting to understand there is no such thing as safe levels for some carcinogens like benzene because some carcinogens at any level can damage cells. Considering that the consequence could be very high (i.e. cancers and health), it is surprising that our government authorities have not undertaken a comprehensive health assessment of this proposal, including an up to date review of the literature, including epidemiological, biochemical, pharmacological, and molecular biology data, and have not sought expert advice from current leaders/scientists in the area (eg, the Boston Health Department and Boston Researchers like Prof. Mike McClean). This sort of review probably should be required under council's "duty of care".Indeed, with this awareness of impact to health, some residents have asked Sunshine Coast Regional Council to exercise their duty of care to the residents and children and protect them from avoidable exposure to harmful carcinogens, in particular those emanating from the proposed Kunda Park Asphalt Plant. They have asked that council undertake a site specific health risk assessment for the community, for food shops, and commercial workers, and include the issue of temperature inversions in the study. ***********************Tupper Morehead M.D. speaks about health riskTupper is a medical doctor with a divinity degree. He speaks about the medical and ethical threats an asphalt plant, quarry, and cement plant pose to the community. *********************** Reference 1 Mortality of mastic asphalt workers. Hansen ES. "Among persons aged 40 to 89 years, significant increases were seen for lung cancer (SMR 290, 95% CI 188-429), nonpulmonary cancer (SMR 200, 95% CI 141-276), and liver cirrhosis (SMR 467, 95% CI 188-962). Bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma also occurred in excess (SMR 207, 95% CI 95-393). In conclusion, the inhalation of bitumen fumes may have contributed to the elevated mortality from cancer and respiratory diseases among mastic asphalt workers." ed: SMR is a mortality ratio, so a SMR of 290 is a 2.9 increase in the incidence of lung cancer, click here for more details Reference 2Cancer incidence of Nordic asphalt workers. Randem BG et al 2004 "Lung cancer incidence was increased in all four countries" http://sites.google.com/site/kundaparkneighbours/asphalt-plants-benzene-and-cancer (2 of 8) [8/4/2011 4:31:02 PM] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 93 Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com) The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com), Serving Pottstown, PA News Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal Sunday, April 5, 2009 By Evan Brandt ebrandt@pottsmerc.com NEW HANOVER — Signing a proposed settlement with Gibraltar Rock to end litigation over the quarry the company wants to build off Route 73 may obligate the township to support an application for an asphalt plant likely to spew dangerous chemicals into the air. According to the proposed agreement made public by the supervisors, if the settlement is approved, "the township shall support Gibraltar Rock's applications for air quality permits for a hot mix bituminous concrete plant," among other applications. In the proposed settlement, the township would also "agree that it will not object to or oppose any permit applications or permit modification applications by Gibraltar Rock related to the activities contemplated by this agreement." Robert Brant, the attorney who has been negotiating on behalf of the township with Gibraltar Rock's lawyers for more than a year, said he is not sure that language would prevent the supervisors from objecting to increased air pollution from an asphalt plant. "I don't know if the agreement gives (Gibraltar Rock) carte blanche to any permits at all times," he said. Brant said in the past, when discussing pollution from the blasting and rock crushing operation neces sary to a quarry, the township used a consultant who specializes in air pollution. But Christopher Mullaney, the lawyer representing the Ban the Quarry group, thinks differently. What will govern what the township government can say and do is not what a consultant says CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 94 Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com) about the air pollution that comes with an asphalt plant, but what the settlement language says the township must do, Mullaney suggested. "The proposed settlement would mandate the township supervisors to support that application," Mullaney said. "It says 'shall' right there in the language. That doesn't give you a lot of options. I think the township wouldn't be allowed to object." The substances to which township officials might not be able to object include an alphabet soup of chemicals classified by the federal government as hazardous air pollutants, or HAPs, and volatile organic compounds, also known as VOCs. Lynda Rebarchak, a spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Southeast Regional Office in Norristown, said no application related to the asphalt plant has been filed yet by Gibraltar, but one is expected. The permit her office oversees is an air quality permit, one of two the company had to obtain from the DEP for the mining portion of the project. A separate permit, complete with public hearings, would be required for the asphalt plant. Hot-mix asphalt plants come in several varieties, with several types of fuel to provide the heat — some are even mobile — and as such their emission profiles differ. Rebarchak was reluctant to characterize what sort of emissions might be regulated under a permit for which no application has been made, but said generally, every asphalt plant emits carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide — known as "NOX and SOX" — and volatile organic compounds. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a little more specific, issuing in 2000 a report assessing the most common emissions from hot-mix asphalt plants. The primary variables that dictate emissions are the type of mixer, "drum mix or batch mix," the type of fuel used for the dryer, oil or natural gas and the size of the plant or how much material it processes, according to the EPA study. About 70 to 90 percent of the plants surveyed in 1996 use natural gas as a dryer fuel, the EPA found. According to the EPA, "a typical batch mix plant using a No. 2 fuel oil-fired dryer emits over 74,000 pounds per year of criteria pollutants and a typical batch mix plant using a natural gas fired dryer emits over 56,000 pounds per year od criteria pollutants of which approximately 41,000 pounds per year are (carbon monoxide) and approximately 10,700 pounds per year are PM-10 emissions." PM-10 emissions are particulate matter, or dust, of 10 micrometers or less. ] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 95 Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com) In addition to the larger volume pollutants mentioned above, the EPA also found that a typical batch mix plant emits 1,500 pounds per year of volatile organic compounds, whereas the average drum mix plant emits 10,000 pounds of VOCs per year. For example, in terms of sulfur dioxide, the average drum mix plant emits 2,200 pounds if its dryer is oil fired and 710 pounds if it uses gas. The average batch mix plant emits 8,600 pounds of sulfur dioxide a year if its dryer is oil-fired and 480 pounds per year if it uses gas, the EPA concluded. As for volatile hazardous air pollutants, the typical drum plant emits 1,800 pounds into the air per year if its dryer is oil-fired and 1,200 pounds per year if it uses gas. The average batch mix plant emits 760 pounds of volatile hazardous air pollutants into the air, no matter what fuel is used in its dryer, the EPA reported. The effects of these pollutants on human health is not entirely explored or known, although many of them are believed by the federal government to exacerbate breathing problems and asthma, and some are even considered likely carcinogens. For example, at high concentrations sulfur dioxide "is considered immediately dangerous to life and health," according to the federal Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry. According to data collected from the Occupancy Health and Safety Administration "long term exposure to persistent levels of sulfur dioxide can also affect your health." Tests using low-level exposure on guinea pigs found changes in their ability to breath deeply or as much air per breath, reports ATSDR, which also noted "children may be exposed to more sulfur dioxide than adults because they breath more air for their body weight than adults do." Also, "it is known that exercising asthmatics are sensitive to low concentrations of sulfur dioxide," the agency reported. Concerns about the effect of quarry operations on asthmatic children at New Hanover/Upper Frederick Elementary School and the Perkiomen Academy, both of which are within a mile of the site of the proposed quarry and asphalt plant, have been raised by residents at several public meetings. In addition to small amounts of lead, mercury and arsenic, the EPA study also found most hot mix asphalt plants also emit a long list of other volatile hazardous air pollutants in varying amounts. Among the highest are ethylbenzene, xylene and formaldehyde. According to ATSDR "health statements" on ethylbenzene, long-term exposure in the air caused kidney damage in animals and "potentially irreversible damage to the inner ear in the f CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 96 Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal - The Pottstown Mercury (pottsmerc.com) hearing of animals." More worrisome is the fact that the International Agency for Research on Cancer "has determined long-term exposure to ethylbenzene may cause cancer in humans," according to the ATSDR. According to the same agency, the effects of long-term exposure to xylene at low levels is not well-studied, but there is some information if can cause damage to the nervous system if inhaled. "Animal studies showed that xylene absorbed by the mother can cross the placenta and reach the fetus" and some studies found the offspring of those mothers sometimes have reduced body weight and trouble with motor coordination. The ATSDR also reports that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services "has determined that formaldehyde may reasonably be anticipated to be a numan carcinogen." Similarly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer "has determined that formaldehyde is probably carcinogenic to humans," a conclusion also reached by the EPA. "Some studies of humans exposed to lower amounts of formaldehyde in workplace air found more cases of the cancer of the nose and throat than expected," but other studies did not find the same results, the ATSDR health statement says. While all of the information provided here is in the public domain, some question whether the New Hanover Township Supervisors would be permitted to raise objections based on these or other factors if the proposed settlement is ultimately approved. There are several asphalt plants in the region, including in Upper Frederick and in Bechtelsville. Ron Comisky, executive director of the Pennsylvania Asphalt Pavement Association, said that there are about 137 asphalt plants in the state and that there has been no significant increase or decrease in their number in the past 10 years. URL: http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/04/05/news/srv0000005039118.prt © 2009 pottsmerc.com, a Journal Register Property ] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 93 .Gntral.offke: PO Box 88 Glendale Sp&gs,NC 28629 (910) 982-2691 fax: (910) 982-2954 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACTS: - APRIL 9, 1997 Louis Zeller (910) 982-2691 Janet M. Zeller (910) 982-2691 Michelle Kilborne (704) 262-3245 Dale Thompson (704) 733-2478 GROUPS CHARGE MAYMEAD WITH INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS At a press conference today in Boone, representatives of three citizens' groups charged that Maymead Materials, Inc. has a history of noncompliance with Tennessee and Virginia regulations in their operation of asphalt plants. Representatives of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), Pineola Concerned Citizens (PCC), and Citizens Against Pollution (CAP) released Notices Of Violations, citizens' complaint records, and legal enforcement- actions from state files in Johnson City, Tennessee and Abingdon, Virginia. Records show violations of permits including excess hourly and total annual asphalt production at plants in Rusuell,Ccrvaty, Virginia and Mountain City, Tenn4ssee. Other Notices Of Violations included burning #4 waste oil instead of #2 Diesel and visible emissions of 52%. Complaint files included nearby residents reporting frequent odors and dust. Of particular concern to BREDL, PCC, and CAP is Maymead's long history of what appears to be intentional violations. "How can any operator burn or buy waste oil without knowing it?" said Lou Zel ler, community organizer for BREDL. "In Pineola, NC and now in Mountain City, TN Maymead has been caught burning #4 oil which emits.many -more- CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 98 more toxic air pollutants than their permitted fuel." In a letter dated April 9 to Alan Klimek, head of the NC Division of Air Quality, Zeller wrote, "Maymead cannot be trusted to operate asphalt plants in residential communities in North Carolina; their history of violations in Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina reveal a disturbing pattern of willful noncompliance." Zeller's letter concluded: "On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and on behalf of the Pineola Concerned Citizens and Citizens Against Pollution, I request that the NC Division oi Air Quality deny daymead's permit application for the Roby Green site and re-open the permit for the Pineola plant. Nothing short of an &-site inspector is adequate to enforce compliance by a company of Maymead's character." Representatives of Pineola Concerned Citizens are gathering data about the adverse health impacts suffered by neighbcrs of :he Mapmead plant. Ta3ay CAP launched a healtn survey which their members will carry door-to-door in the residential communities near Roby Green Road, the proposed site for a new Maymead plant. This survey is designed to identify high-risk citizens who have respiratory diseases, pregnancy, etc. Dale Thompson of PCC reported that neighbors of the recently re-started Pineola plant have experienced odors and witnessed smoke. He also reported that he and his wife Nancy have had a reduced property value because of the asphalt plant. Other Pineola property owners have also been .assessed reduced property taxes. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 99 Clean Air for Calgary Significant Issues Pertaining to Poor Air Quality in the Calgary Area... # 1 - NW Asphalt Plant Prime Minister Harper has campaigned on the devotion to real, result oriented, environmental policies and against race-biased policies. The question needs to be asked are we violating both of those principles right? in his own riding, allowing this plant to behave in a way that is damaging the environment and making people in the surrounding communities ill. "I had noticed I was breathing a little better and had asked a neighbor if they had also noticed it and their comment was yes –since the plant has closed for the season” “How much longer do we have to wait with this plant, when it would have been shut down if located in any other location?” What to do if you Smell a Petroleum/Diesel-like Odour? Environment Alberta cannot keep up with volume of calls, and will only be taking down a count of the number of calls. Please call their Hotline at: 1-800-222-6514. Breaking News 3/30/2007 - Calgary Clean Air’s review of the Final Screening Report for Sarcee Asphalt Plant. " Ultimately, while there is little debate among residents that the major contributing factor to offensive odour and other emissions from this particular facility is its use of “used/waste oil” as its fuel and that a switch to a cleaner fuel such as natural gas or propane would virtually eliminate the odour problem at this facility, and while INAC does not compel the Sarcee Asphalt Plant to switch to a cleaner burning fuel, we must view INAC’s requirement that this plant not “cause an offensive odour”, with healthy skepticism that the sources of the toxic fumes in our neighbourhoods will actually be mitigated. " Read it here CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 100 Clean Air for Calgary 3/16/2007 - CEAA Environmental Screening Report for Sarcee Asphalt Plant is completed. "It is critical that all recommended mitigation measures be implemented." Including... "Install and properly operate necessary commercially available pollution control technologies to successfully mitigate offensive odours and emissions. Odours from the plant should not be offensive." read the entire report 3/1/2007 - Federal Clean Air Act - Interestingly enough, Jim Prentice's (Minister for Indian Affairs) official web site mentions his interest on Canada's Clean Air Act (read more about the Act here). 1/08/2007 - Here is the letter we sent to Hon. John Baird, the new Minister of the Environment. download Word version here previous news below Why Does this Smell Occur in the SW? There is an unlicensed asphalt plant located on the Tsuu T'ina Nation, which is owned and operated by the Tsuu T'ina Council and CARMACKS Enterprises. This plant has been operating without any required permits for over 2 1/2 years. According to the Prime Ministers office "To remain competitive with other asphalt plants in Calgary, the Tsuu T’ina Nation (Council's & Carmacks) plant is using waste oil, whereas other producers now use only propane or natural gas, which considerably diminishes the odour emanating from their plants." Are Asphalt Fumes Dangerous to our Health? Asphalt Fumes are Known Toxins. "Asphalt processing and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities are major sources of hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde, hexane, phenol, polycyclic organic matter, and toluene. Exposure to these air toxics may cause cancer, central nervous system problems, liver damage, respiratory problems and skin irritation." [EPA] more on Health Issues Previous News on the Asphalt Plant 10/23/06 - Sleepless in South Calgary - Calgary Herald - ....the plant burns dirty, used oil rather than cleaner natural gas. The federal government is now keeping the plant open while it assesses emissions. Federal Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice wants to wait for the results of stack tests. If I built an asphalt plant, without a permit that burned dirty fuel upwind from a residential area and 500 Calgarians complained it was making their children sick, would I be granted that leniency? Download 10/19/06 - CBC Radio 1 Eye Opener - "I’ve been thinking about how societies encourage good behaviour. Most start with the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. The Sarcee Asphalt plant, started up in 2004, upwind of Oakridge community, burns dirty bunker oil instead of cleaner natural gas or propane. The Tsuu T’ina just never bothered to get the required federal permits and have run the plant illegally for two and a half years. After over 500 Calgarians complained that the plant is making their kids ill, Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice said he wouldn’t shut down the illegal facility, Concerned Calgarians should write to Stephen Harper, whose riding includes all the communities affected by the Tsuu T’ina actions, and Jim Prentice, who’s responsible for Indian Affairs. Tell them you’re mad as hell and you’re not going to take it anymore." read the transcript CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 101 Clean Air for Calgary 10/14/06 - CTV News - Residents experiencing nauseating, burning sensation throughout several SW communities. Complaints received by residents both on and off reserve. Several hundred elementary and pre-school children are be subjected to the Tsuu T'ina and Carmarcks un-permitted asphalt plant emissions. Over 600 health complaints received regarding emission of the asphalt plant, however Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) says results so far are normal and acceptable. Note: None of the tests completed so far deal with the odour and its affects, stack tests will be done sometime in the next 2 weeks according to INAC. 10/05/06 - Calgary Clean presents the public input into the Permitting, EA and Screening process. Download document here 9/26/06 Calgary Herald - Asphalt Plant owner and City of Calgary Supplier Carmacks Enterprises Summoned to Court to Face 8 Charges for Failing to Ensure the Health and Safety of Workers - Two local companies could be facing up to $500,000 in fines after a Calgary worker was seriously hurt by an electric shock two years ago. The province has laid eight charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act against Carmacks Enterprises Ltd. and D&D Enterprises. The companies are accused of failing to ensure the health and safety of workers, along with other charges. Both companies have been summoned to appear in Calgary Provincial Court on November 10. Carmacks is currently providing to Alberta Transportation the highway maintenance services on the Deerfoot Trail in the City of Calgary Indian and Northern Affairs Commitment - "The Department will encourage the Nation to operate within the terms and conditions of the permit, but if it is determined that the plant poses a health risk to Nation members or the public, the Department will do everything within its power and authority to have the plant shut down until remedial action is taken." read the entire letter 9/21/06 Numerous Health Concerns have been Reported. If you live in one of the SW Calgary neigbourhoods affected by the Tsuu T'ina Council & CARMACKS asphalt plant (Oakridge, Palliser, Braeside, Lakview, Bayview, CedarBrae, Woodbine) and have experienced unusual health concerns over the summer, you are not alone. Common ailments associated with asphalt plant emissions include: asthma, coughing, wheezing or shortness of breath, severe irritation of the skin, headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Please send an e-mail to info@calgarycleanair.com with your health issues and contact information. 9/13/06 READ our Responses and Questions (including satellite photos of the site). After careful review of the Tsuu T'ina's Council submitted EA and Screening report, over 8 pages of inconsistencies where uncovered, including: Incorrect distances (the plant is actually 2.5kms from the City, not 4kms as the Tsuu T'ina state in the report); the Tsuu T'ina Assessment is silent on the description of the oil products that are being used at the asphalt plant; Contamination of groundwater is a serious matter and has significant adverse environmental effects if not properly mitigated; the Assessment states that trucks leaving the asphalt plant need to travel across a one-lane bridge that crosses the Elbow River. The Elbow River crossing site is immediately upstream of the Glenmore Reservoir and this is the water body used by the City of Calgary as its major source for drinking water for the city’s population. Should a malfunction or accident occur due to either spillage or an unfortunate accident with a truck carrying asphalt leaving the bridge and entering the river, this could have significant impact on the water quality; A critical concern lies with the volume and type of oil stored on the plant site and the significant adverse effect that could occur should these tanks rupture or ignite. There is no mention of secondary containment or fire extinguishing equipment or procedures in the Assessment. The resulting potential safety hazard as well as adverse environmental effects would be experienced by both the residents of the Reserve and the City of Calgary (possibly similar to the experience relating to the Hub Oil facility explosion and fire in Calgary, AB). Download Document 9/11/06 Download the Tsuu T'ina's Environmental Assessment and Screening Report 9/11/06 Calgary Herald article in City Section - An environmental report completed by the plant operators (Tsuu T'ina and Carmacks Enterprises ) were advised to use cleaner fuels and introduce odour neutralizers to mitigate fume problems. However, the Tsuu T'ina and Carmacks Enterprises are clearly ignoring those recommendations by continuing to operate the illegal asphalt plant. Due to jurisdiction issues, the province hasn't been testing on Tsuu T'ina land, but has offered to do so. So far, the proposal hasn't been accepted. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 102 Clean Air for Calgary 9/10/06 - Asphalt Plant is back in illegal Operation!! - After 8 days of clean air, Calgary and Tsuu T'ina residents were once again woken by the toxic smell of petroleum/diesel early Sunday morning. It appears not having a permit, or following the Provincial standards outlined for the operation of an asphalt plant has not stopped the Tsuu T'ina Council and Carmacks Enterprises from operating this plant. 9/8/06 Calgary Herald article in City Section - Alberta Environment admits due to jurisdiction issues they have not been testing at the plant site. This is contrary to what Tsuu T'ina Nation 's Peter Mannywounds said on the Rutherford show on August 31st, where he indicated that any approved testing agency can come on to the reserve. Read the article 9/6/06 QR77 Radio RUTHERFORD SHOW Interview - Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Minister Jim Prentice confirms that if plant doesn't meet rules it will be shut down. Minister also mentions the asphalt plant could be using waste oil instead of properly scrubbed oil. Caller also says "if this plant was built on City property so close to the Elbow River is would be shut down in a minute." 8/31/06 CTV News 5pm - Headaches, fatigue, throat and eye irritation plague City residents from fumes coming from an un-permitted asphalt plant on Tsuu T'ina. Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada spokesperson says funding to the reserve could be affected if this plant does not meet the environmental regulations. Tsuu T'ina Nations comment to CTV News: no comment, they are hoping the problem will just go away. 8/31/06 City of Calgary - City Director of Roads says "the City is not purchasing at this time and is awaiting the Environmental report findings." 8/31/06 QR77 Radio RUTHERFORD SHOW Interview - Department of Indian and Northern Affairs clearly states a land use permit and environment impact assessment were required from the band before an asphalt plant can be built, they also confirmed this was not done until after the plant was operating. Carmacks Enterprises has partnered with the Tsuu T'ina Council to run this un-permitted asphalt plant. 8/30/06 CBC News Canada - Paulson told CBC News that while he is concerned about the complaints, there isn't much that can be done right now, adding that the plant is just one of the inconveniences that comes with industrial development.read the entire story. Listen here 8/29/06 CBC News Canada - some people in southwest Calgary say an asphalt plant on the nearby Tsuu T'ina First Nation has been harming their health, complaining that the aboriginal operators aren't operating under the usual environmental regulations. Alberta Environment officials had been taking air samples but stopped after they were told the reserve falls under federal jurisdiction. read the entire story. Listen here (C) 2007 CalgaryCleanAir.com Terms of Use CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 103 PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust from Coal-Tar Sealcoated Pavement is Widespread in the United States Peter C. Van Metre*, Barbara J. Mahler and Jennifer T. Wilson U.S. Geological Survey, Austin, Texas Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (1), pp 20–25 We reported in 2005 that runoff from parking lots treated with coal-tar-based sealcoat was a major source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to streams in Austin, Texas. Here we present new data from nine U.S. cities that show nationwide patterns in concentrations of PAHs associated with sealcoat. Dust was swept from parking lots in six cities in the central and eastern U.S., where coal-tar-based sealcoat dominates use, and three cities in the western U.S., where asphalt-based sealcoat dominates use. For six central and eastern cities, median ΣPAH concentrations in dust from sealcoated and unsealcoated pavement are 2200 and 27 mg/kg, respectively. For three western cities, median ΣPAH concentrations in dust from sealcoated and unsealcoated pavement are similar and very low (2.1 and 0.8 mg/kg, respectively). Lakes in the central and eastern cities where pavement was sampled have bottom sediments with higher PAH concentrations than do those in the western cities relative to degree of urbanization. Bottom- sediment PAH assemblages are similar to those of sealcoated pavement dust regionally, implicating coal-tar-based sealcoat as a PAH source to the central and eastern lakes. Concentrations of benzo[a]pyrene in dust from coal-tar sealcoated pavement and adjacent soils greatly exceed generic soil screening levels, suggesting that research on human-health risk is warranted. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209579 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 104 UNC News release -- Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests NEWS SERVICES 210 Pittsboro Street Campus Box 6210 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-6210 T 919-962-2091 F 919-962-2279 www.unc.edu/news/ news@unc.edu News Release For immediate use Dec. 16, 2004 -- No. 591 Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests By LESLIE H. LANG UNC School of Medicine CHAPEL HILL -- Exposure to low levels of hydrogen sulfide and possibly other airborne chemicals from nearby asphalt plants may have contributed to an increased suicide rate in a North Carolina community, a study suggests for the first time. In 2003, the suicide rate in two Salisbury, N.C., neighborhoods was found to be 128 per 100,000 individuals a year, roughly 10 times the statewide average, as stated in community reports confirmed by death certificates for that year by the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL). The study’s lead author is Dr. Richard H. Weisler, adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine, adjunct assistant professor of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center and BREDL volunteer. Other collaborators in this research were Dr. Jonathan R.T. Davidson, professor of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center; Dr. Lynn Crosby, a toxicologist with BREDL; Lou Zeller, BREDL director; Hope Taylor-Guevera, director of Clean Water for North Carolina; Sheila Singleton, executive director of the N.C. Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance; and Melissa Fiffer and Stacy Tsougas, undergraduates at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and BREDL summer interns. The neighborhoods comprising two U.S. census tract block groups contained a total of 1,561 residents who were living immediately downwind from a liquid asphalt terminal; an asphalt hot-mix plant, which also contained a former N. C. Department of Transportation solvent-contaminated cleanup site where the DOT had previously dumped solvents used for testing asphalt; and a contaminated former petroleum tank farm. Between 1994 and 2003, death certificate evaluations for the two Salisbury neighborhoods showed a three-fold statistically significant increase in the suicide rate, the study found. Four deaths by suicide in adults were reported from the 687 residents in the census tract block group 1. Two deaths by suicide in adults were reported among the 874 residents of census tract block group 2. Only two deaths by suicide would be expected for this population over a 10-year period, but six suicides were observed. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 105 UNC News release -- Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests "For example, here in the block group 1 neighborhood in the mid-90s, we found one death by suicide for about every 230 people during the worst 12-month period, versus an average of one death by suicide for every 8,621 people in the rest of North Carolina," Weisler said. "When we saw this data it gave us pause." Weisler said of hydrogen sulfide, "The odor was frequently apparent when I lived there as a child and later when I visited my mother, who lived in the neighborhood from 1962 until her death in 2001." That year (2001), the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) estimated the average maximum hydrogen sulfide level in a large part of the affected area at 215 parts per billion (pbb), while some sections of the neighborhoods were reported as low as 30 ppb. Moreover, based on their own air modeling study, the NCDENR estimated that historical releases of hydrogen sulfide reached average maximum levels of 860 ppb in a few residences very near the asphalt facilities. By comparison, the World Health Organization has a 10-minute exposure standard of five ppb. The California one- hour standard is 30 ppb. The newly revised, but not yet implemented, North Carolina 24-hour hydrogen sulfide standard is 86.2 ppb. These exposures accompanied 574 formal complaints to the City of Salisbury from March 11, 1999, to Oct. 15, 2004, for noxious odors and associated respiratory problems, which are still occurring – though at a reduced rate – said Weisler. In addition to suggestions of an increased suicide rate, the incidence rate of primary brain cancers in these neighborhoods from 1995 to 2000 showed an increase about 6.4 times greater than expected for the population, possibly due to benzene and other solvent exposures, Weisler said. Several studies have shown increased rates of lung and brain cancer among workers with long-term exposure to asphalt emissions, the researchers said. Weisler and his study team made a hypothetical link between hydrogen sulfide and suicides due to biological plausibility. They noted that hydrogen sulfide affects brain neurochemistry as a direct gaseous neuromodulator that potentially affects mood states and the psychological stress response. In animal studies, it has been shown to alter the neurotransmitters serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, aspartate and glutamate levels. Hydrogen sulfide also affects the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis and corticotropin releasing factor in animal studies, the report said. "This is the part of the brain involved in the stress response, and we think it’s also involved in psychological resiliency, how people deal with stressors," Weisler said. "It’s frequently associated with mood disorders, and there are suggestions that resiliency is impaired when people are suicidal." The study team reported that additional neurotoxic compounds such as benzene, chlorinated solvents and carbon disulfide, among others, were released in unknown quantities by the asphalt terminal and hot-mix asphalt plant. Carbon disulfide, also a neurotoxin, has been linked to personality changes, mood disorders and suicides in occupational settings, the researchers said. In addition, "Some research suggests that highway workers exposed to asphalt-solvent fumes show an increase of suicide rates and brain cancers." A full characterization of the types of chemicals and the levels of releases at the liquid asphalt terminal is needed, said Weisler. Also needed, he added, is the retrospective ground water contamination modeling study called for in 2002 by the N. C. Department of Health and Human CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 11062 UNC News release -- Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests Services to more completely understand the possible causes of health problems in the affected neighborhoods. "I do not know if ground water modeling would help us understand the suicides, but since there were exposures it would be quite useful to have that modeling information. The same modeling would certainly help with interpreting the cancer data as people with brain, lung, blood, pancreatic, breast, and colon cancers had been or may have been using solvent contaminated well water for extended periods," Weisler said. Davidson said the most important point for people to remember is that effective treatments exist for suicidal depression. "Given that suicide can be a tragic consequence to depression, people who are experiencing persistent symptoms of depression should contact their health-care provider for a professional evaluation," he said. "The findings of this study may suggest another potential risk factor for suicide, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies." The most common symptoms of depression include loss of interest in activities once considered pleasurable, social withdrawal, changes in appetite, low mood, inability to function effectively in work or family situations and, often, a feeling of hopelessness and despair. "It is the hopelessness that can lead to suicidal thoughts or actions," Davidson added. A person with a family history of suicide attempts or substance abuse may be at greater risk than others, he said, adding that the study findings may eventually suggest yet another risk factor for suicide – making further study all the more important. Weisler and Davidson both emphasized the need to educate residents of the affected areas about mood and anxiety disorders as well as substance use disorders and their treatments. Formal health studies of the two neighborhoods and other potential sites with chemical exposures are being planned at UNC’s School of Public Health. The health status of residents who died by suicide will be investigated further in a study involving Dr. Steven B. Wing, associate professor of epidemiology, and others at UNC’s School of Public Health. Significant steps have already been taken, said Weisler, but reducing potentially toxic exposures from the industrial plants and safe cleanup of the solvent and petroleum contaminated area sites will be crucial. "We do not know with scientific certainty that the area suicides are linked to hazardous chemical exposures, but we know enough to recommend that it is not worth taking any more chances on the potential association." Weisler presented the findings Nov. 19 to the 17th Annual U.S. Psychiatric and Mental Health Congress in San Diego. - 30 - Note: For media inquiries about this story and to speak with Weisler, contact Crystal Hinson Miller at (919) 966-9115. UNC School of Medicine contact: Les Lang, (919) 843-9687 or llang@med.unc.edu Duke University Medical Center contact: Tracey Koepke, (919) 660-1301 or koepk002@mc.duke.edu ] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 107 Recycling Today Magazine » Asphalt Pollution Probe Extends Recycling Today Magazine Shared Logic Asphalt Pollution Probe Extends By 7/6/2004 URL: http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=6040 A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pollution investigation of asphalt companies, which mix crude oil and gravel to make road-building materials, has expanded from Ohio to Indiana and other states. The agency has ordered pollution tests and company records from two asphalt plants in Illinois and one each in Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota and in Fairborn, Ohio, near Dayton, The Columbus Dispatch reported. Two Columbus, Ohio, asphalt companies got similar orders earlier in the year. While the agency hasn't discussed the investigation publicly, the EPA said earlier that demands for internal records are the first official steps taken when it suspects Clean Air Act violations. Ohio has more than 300 asphalt plants. There are more than 1,100 asphalt companies nationwide, many with several operating plants. Plant owners and the industry's trade association said they didn't know the reason for the EPA directives and questioned the cost. "I'm one of 200 or so plants in Illinois," said Stephen Kennedy, vice president of Rock Road Cos., which runs a plant in Rockford. "I'm wondering why I'm doing this and my competitors are not." Bill Omohundro, a U.S. EPA spokesman, would not comment about the expanded investigation, the newspaper said. Omohundro could not be reached for comment July 5th. The letters sought new air-emission tests for soot, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and volatile organic compounds. Companies must provide information about modifiers put into liquid asphalt and about the fuel burned to keep asphalt from hardening. Alvin Evans, chief operating officer for J.H. Rudolph & Company Inc. in Evansville, Ind., said he was asked to test for things the state doesn't require. He said Indiana requires estimates of volatile organic chemicals, nitrogen oxides and sulfur emissions. "We've asked for an extension of the time period we've been given," Evans said. The other companies facing directives from the EPA were Central Specialties Inc. of Alexandria, Minn., Ajax Materials Corp. of Warren, Mich., Barrett Paving Materials Inc. of Fairborn and Chester Bross Construction of Loraine, Ill., the newspaper said. None could be reached for comment July 5th. Gary Fore, vice president of environment and safety for the National Asphalt Pavement Association, called the letters unprecedented and said his group would discuss them with the EPA. Fore said the industry has worked for 10 years with the EPA on studies that show asphalt plants are not major sources of pollution. Theresa Mills, director of the Buckeye Environmental Network, and Simona Vaclavikova, a program director for Ohio Citizen Action, say the tests might not cover all the hazardous substances asphalt plants emit into the air. Both said neighbors began to complain about asphalt plants in Ohio around 2000. Mills suspects complaints might be linked to the used oil some plants burn as fuel or new modifiers put in the asphalt. The industry-supported Asphalt Institute said asphalt is the environmental choice of highway builders because, in part,it can be colored to match the surrounding environment and, without seams like concrete section amid heavy truck traffic. Associated Press CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 108 , BL~ RIDGE Em(omm~ DEFENSE LEAGUE I Csntni ofkc PO Box 88 Glendale Spnngs, NC 25629 (910) 982-2691 [ax: (910) 952-2954 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACTS: JULY 24, 1997 Dr. Richard Maas (704) 251-6441 - Lou and Janet ZelIer (910) 932-2691 Dale and Nancy Thompson (704) 733-2478 Doma Autrey (704) 733-5653 Ron Chlvers (704) 262-0070 CARCINOGENS DISCOVERED NEAR MAYMEAD PLANT Today at a press conference in Pineola in Avery County, citizens' organizations released laboratory test results showjng both drinking water well contamination and surfrice water pollution. The Biue R.idge Environmental Defense Leape, Pineola Concerned Citizens, and Citizens Against ~ollutioi poinied to the large Maymead asphalt plant as a likely soure of the contamination. Test results of water samples taken from the well of Dale and Nancy Thompson and from area streams show h~gh levels of formaldehyde. The Thompsons live next to the 325 ton per hour iMaymead plant. Asphalt plznts are a major source of formaldehyde, which is highly soluble in water. The laboratory test results were reviewed by Dr. Richard Maas, a leading water quality expert and head of the Environmental Quality Institute ar UNC-Asheville. Dr. Maas concluded, 'The analysis shows a severe level of contamination by formaldehyde which is a known carcinogen." The Thompsons' well water test results revealed .22 mg'L of formaldehyde. Water samples gathered from a pond and streams which drain the asphalt plant area were also highly contaminated with .23 m& of formaldehyde. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 109 page 2 The citizens' groups called for an immediate shut down of the Mayrnead plant, . for the installation of groundwater test wells around the facility, and for testing of all drinking water wells viivlthin one-half mile of the plant. Lou Zeller, community organizer for BREDL, said, "The state of North Carolina has permitted this plant and the state must take action now to assess the damage to the people of Pineola." Zeller wntinued, "State air and water permits must mean that the environment and public health are protsted." In the next two weeks, the groups expect the North Caroiina Division of Air (ju7&ty to release 11s &-cision about a proposed Maymead asphait plant east of Boone. According to the draft permit, that 150 ton per hour plant could release 0-xr 3,000 pmu.q& of formaldehyde annually. Ron Chivers of the ~atauga-bked Citizens Against Pollution, called on the state to deny the new Maymead permit. Chvers said, 'We implore you to remember your 0% mission goals, to preserve flrst and foremost the health ani; velfare of the people you serve." The Avery County Board of Commissioners has requested a £dl toxic inventory of pollutants coming from the Pineola plant. The NC Division of Air Quality has not yet issued that report. State officials are also conducting a health risk assessment-for the Pineola community. -end- CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 110 Childhood Brain Cancers Near Asphalt Industry in Salisbury, North Carolina Adapted from a presentation by Dr. Richard Weisler Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League January 2003 Health Problems •Increased Cancer Rate o Over the last five years, very rare childhood brain cancers have been occurring at rates 11 times that expected in three census tracts near asphalt plants and untreated groundwater contaminated sites in the Milford Hills community of Salisbury. o The four cases were identified by a lone physician and may underestimate the actual cancer rate. o The ages of the children diagnosed with brain cancers were 3, 9, 11, and 16. o The rate of morbidity may be increasing: 14 of the 19 brain cancers in this survey were diagnosed between 1995 and 2002. Just 5 of the cancers were diagnosed in the previous seven years, between 1988 and 1995. •Other Health Problems o Rates of cancers of the lung, pancreas, and blood system appear to be increased. o Because of the types of contamination, other health problems including heart disease, stroke, asthma, diabetes, and thyroid disease are of great concern. •Citizens’ Plan of Action o The State of North Carolina failed to protect the health of residents of Milford Hills. Citizens do not believe that the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources will honestly assess the true risks from the chemical poisons that have contaminated this community. o The asphalt industry and the NC Department of Transportation have failed to clean up this environmental disaster and make the area safe for residents. o Ultimately, public health officials will need the help of residents past and present to do a proper health study. o Our plan is to assist in the identification of residents and workers who have been exposed. 1 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 111 The Polluters •Chevron Asphalt o Poisoned the air, water, and soil for about 45 years with benzene, solvents, asbestos, lead, cadmium, dangerous fine particles, hydrogen sulfide, and other cancer-causing chemicals by the manufacture of “cutback asphalt.” o Illegally delayed reporting dangerous contamination nine years after finding it, never reported friable asbestos, and never notified workers or neighbors who were exposed. o Never controlled or treated toxic plant emissions. •Exxon Mobile o Poisoned the underground water supply and soil with acres of oil products for many decades. o Contaminated the air with dangerous chemicals from old storage tanks, spills, and leaks. o Emitted benzene at levels 1,233 times about maximum acceptable levels next to a Little League park. o Never informed residents or elected officials about the exposure and associated health risks. •NC Department of Transportation o Contaminated shallow and deep groundwater supply for decades. For example, trichloroethylene levels in well water reached 7,600 ppb (the acceptable maximum is 2.8 ppb). o Failed to properly limit or advise monitoring for dangerous solvent exposure of workers or residents. o Never told residents or city officials of the risks. o Delayed cleanup, which remains inadequate. •Associated Asphalt o Released immediately life threatening hydrogen sulfide into the air measured at 2,400 ppm on-site, triggering asthmas at great distances from the plant. o Emitted sickening odors that permeated homes and drove people indoors. o Poisoned the air with dozens of toxic chemicals. o Unlawfully removed asbestos-insulated storage tanks and pipes in 1998 without permits. o Scrapped carbon air filters and replaced with ineffective Ecosorb system to save money. o Grossly under-reported toxic releases. 2 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 112 Cancer Risk from Incidental Ingestion Exposures to PAHs Associated with Coal-Tar-Sealed Pavement E. Spencer Williams,*,†Barbara J. Mahler, ‡and Peter C. Van Metre ‡ †Baylor University, Center for Reservoir and Aquatic Systems Research, One Bear Place #97178, Waco, Texas 76798-7178, United States ‡U.S. Geological Survey, 1505 Ferguson Lane, Austin, Texas 78754, United States *S Supporting Information ABSTRACT:Recent (2009−10) studies documented significantly higher concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in settled house dust in living spaces and soil adjacent to parking lots sealed with coal-tar-based products. To date, no studies have examined the potential human health effects of PAHs from these products in dust and soil. Here we present the results of an analysis of potential cancer risk associated with incidental ingestion exposures to PAHs in settings near coal-tar-sealed pavement. Exposures to benzo[a]pyrene equiv- alents were characterized across five scenarios. The central tendency estimate of excess cancer risk resulting from lifetime exposures to soil and dust from nondietary ingestion in these settings exceeded 1 × 10−4, as determined using deterministic and probabilistic methods. Soil was the primary driver of risk, but according to probabilistic calculations, reasonable maximum exposure to affected house dust in the first 6 years of life was sufficient to generate an estimated excess lifetime cancer risk of 6 × 10−5. Our results indicate that the presence of coal-tar-based pavement sealants is associated with significant increases in estimated excess lifetime cancer risk for nearby residents. Much of this calculated excess risk arises from exposures to PAHs in early childhood (i.e., 0−6 years of age). ■INTRODUCTION The presence of coal-tar-based sealants on asphalt parking lots is associated with elevated concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the surrounding environ- ment.1−6 Sealcoat is a black, shiny substance sprayed or painted on the asphalt pavement of parking lots, driveways, and playgrounds to improve appearance and protect the underlying asphalt. An estimated 85 million gallons (320 million liters) of coal-tar-based sealant are applied to pavement each year, 7 primarily east of the Continental Divide in the U.S. and parts of Canada.4,8 Coal-tar-based pavement sealants are 15−35% coal- tar pitch, which has been classified as a human carcinogen (IARC Group 1). 9 PAHs are the major constituents of coal-tar pitch,10 and commercially available coal-tar-based sealants contain on the order of 50000−100 000 mg/kg PAHs [sum of the 16 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Priority Pollutant PAHs (ΣPAH16)].7,11 Over time, the dried sealant is abraded from pavement surfaces, and the resulting mobile particles can be transported into nearby environmental compartments.7,12 Coal-tar-based pavement sealants are the predominant source of PAHs in the sediment of many urban and suburban lakes, especially areas where population is rapidly growing. 3,13 Coal-tar-based sealants are associated with deleterious effects on local ecosystems, including decreases in species richness and abundance among benthic invertebrates, 14,15 slower growth and impaired swimming behaviors in salamanders, 16 and impaired growth and development of frogs. 17 PAHs from coal-tar-based pavement sealants also contaminate environmental media that are relevant to human exposures. In a study of 23 apartments in Austin, Texas, the median concentration of ΣPAH16 in settled house dust (SHD) in residences adjacent to coal-tar-sealed asphalt (CSA) parking lots was 31 times higher than in SHD in apartments adjacent to unsealed asphalt (UA) lots. 18 The presence or absence of coal-tar-based sealants on the adjacent lot explained 48% of the variance in PAH concentrations measured in SHD. 18 Elevated PAH concentrations also have been reported for soil adjacent to CSA lots relative to soil adjacent to UA lots. 2,4 Hereinafter, soil and SHD near CSA or UA parking lots are described as “CSA-affected”or “UA- affected”, respectively. Exposure to PAHs is linked to increased risk for multiple cancer types, including lung, skin, bladder, respiratory, and urinary tract. 19 These studies have mostly examined inhalation exposure at sintering plants, foundries, and similar industrial settings. The carcinogenic properties of tobacco smoke are attributed, in part, to the presence of PAHs. 20 Aside from Received:August 27, 2012 Revised:November 20, 2012 Accepted:November 23, 2012 Published:November 23, 2012 Article pubs.acs.org/est © 2012 American Chemical Society 1101 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−1109 This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License, which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 113 smoking, nonoccupational exposures to PAHs are believed to occur primarily through dietary ingestion. 21 In the interest of understanding aggregate doses, several studies have charac- terized the presence of PAHs in a wide array of foodstuffsin different countries, including the U.S., as reviewed in Ramesh et al. (2004). 21 Seven PAHsbenz[a]anthracene, benzo[k]- fluoranthene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene (diBahA), and indeno[123- cd]pyrenehave been classified by the USEPA as probable human carcinogens (B2 PAHs). Nondietary ingestion (incidental ingestion of soil and SHD) is a pathway for exposure to numerous chemicals, including lead, pesticides, polychlorinated dioxins and furans, polybromi- nated diphenyl ethers, and PAHs, especially in children. 22,23 Many sources and activities are hypothesized to contribute PAHs to SHD, including cooking, smoking, vehicle exhaust, and indoor heating. 24,25 These exposures have been charac- terized as minor relative to those associated with dietary ingestion;26,27 however, recent research indicates that in CSA- affected residences, nondietary ingestion of PAHs likely exceeds dietary ingestion. 28 To date (November 2012), the authors are not aware of any published studies that have assessed the potential risks to human health associated with the elevated concentrations of PAHs measured in CSA-affected environments. The objective of the current study was to examine and compare exposure to and risk arising from ingestion of B2 PAHs in SHD and soil in settings adjacent to CSA and UA parking lots. Standard deterministic risk-assessment techniques were used to estimate B2 PAH doses and associated excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) for five exposure scenarios spanning childhood, adolescence, and adulthood, and probabilistic risk calculations were conducted for three of these scenarios. 29 ■METHODS This risk assessment focuses on the B2 PAHs. Each of these compounds has been assigned a potency factor (RPF) relative to the potency of BaP, ranging from 0.001 for chrysene to 1 for diBahA and BaP. 30 Ingestion dose estimates are presented for BaP equivalents (BaPEQ), computed as the sum of the product of the concentration of each B2 PAH and its RPF. Bioavailability is assumed to be 100%. As noted in ref 18, analytical difficulties with diBahA resulted in nondetections in all but one SHD sample collected for that study. Thus, diBahA is not included here in any computations of BaPEQ in SHD or soil. Estimates of dose including diBahA at the limit of detection divided by two (not shown) indicate that it likely accounted for no more than 5−7% of the total dose of BaPEQ. By comparison, BaP accounted for 72−73% of BaPEQ in SHD samples, and 76−77% in soil samples. Concentrations of BaPEQ in Dust and Soil.Data on PAHs in SHD used for this analysis were published previously.18 In that study, SHD and parking lot dust were sampled for 23 ground-floor apartments in Austin, Texas. The parking lot surface adjacent to the apartment complexes was CSA (n = 11), UA (n = 7), asphalt-based sealant over asphalt pavement (n = 3), or unsealed concrete (n = 2). For this analysis, doses and risk associated with residences adjacent to UA parking lots were considered relative to those adjacent to CSA parking lots. BaP concentrations in CSA-affected SHD were high (median and maximum of 4.5 and 24.2 μg/g, respectively) relative to those reported in most parts of the U.S. where coal-tar-based sealcoat is not used (e.g., California: median and maximum of 0.04 and 1.0 μg/g, respectively; Arizona: median and maximum of 0.06 and 0.07 μg/g, respectively25). We computed BaPEQ for data presented in; 18 concentrations of BaPEQ in SHD in apartments adjacent to CSA parking lots (8.1 μg/g, geometric mean) were significantly higher than those in apartments adjacent to UA lots (0.61 μg/g, geometric mean) (p = 0.002, Mann−Whitney−Wilcoxon). Risk-assessment guidance recommends the use of the 95% upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean, 29 but high standard deviations in the data sets, normality testing in log- transformed data, and an emphasis on conservatism in dose and risk estimates dictated the decision to use geometric means of these data to represent the BaPEQ exposure concentration in deterministic calculations. Dust loading was computed for each location sampled in ref. 18 (Supporting Information Table S1). Loading of BaPEQ in the dust is significantly higher in residences adjacent to CSA pavement (medians of 15.7 μg/m2 CSA vs 0.63 μg/m2 UA;p = 0.01, Mann−Whitney−Wilcoxon). Total dust loading is higher in the CSA group relative to the UA group (medians of 346 and 72.3 μg/cm2, respectively), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.365, Mann−Whitney−Wilcoxon). However, one data point in the UA SHD data set is an outlier (884 μg/ cm2) more than 4 times larger than all other data points and after removal of this data point, CSA settings have significantly higher dust loadings than UA settings (p = 0.043, Student’s t test; data passed normality testing after elimination of the outlier). One issue that could not be resolved in this analysis is the relative importance of flooring type, because some samples were collected in combinations of bare and carpeted flooring. Data for PAHs in CSA- and UA-affected soils are available for samples from New Hampshire (UA n = 1, CSA n =5)2 and suburban Chicago (UA n = 2, CSA n = 2). 4 Concentrations of BaP in UA-affected soils ranged from below detection limit to 0.7 μg/g. These are consistent with background concentrations reported for U.S. soils of up to 1.3 μg/g,19 and somewhat higher than those reported for soil samples collected in remote areas around the world (range <0.0001 to 0.386 μg/g).31 Concentrations of BaP in CSA-affected soils were substantially higher, ranging from 2.98 to 29.2 μg/g.2,4 Concentrations of BaP in dust on pavement with coal-tar-based sealant are typically in the 100s of μg/g.2,18 Concentrations of BaP in the 100s of μg/g in soil are typical of those in soils at manufactured gas sites and wood preservative sites, 32,33 some of which have been classified as Superfund sites (http://www.epa.gov/ region5/cleanup/mgp.htm). Geometric mean BaPEQ soil concentrations for CSA-affected settings were 12.4 μg BaPEQ/g soil, and for UA-affected settings were 0.19 μg BaPEQ/g soil. Deterministic and Probabilistic Estimates of Dose and Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk.Doses of BaPEQ were estimated using the standard equation (eq 1) included in the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Part A. 29 Exposure assumptions for both deterministic and probabilistic risk calculations are given in Supporting Information Table S2. =×××× ×doseCm CF IR EF ED BW AT (1) where Cm is the concentration of BaPEQ in the dust, soil, or both, CF is the conversion factor, IR is ingestion rate, EF is exposure frequency, ED is exposure duration, BW is body weight, and AT is averaging time. Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091102 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 114 The geometric mean BaPEQ for SHD and soil were used as point estimates for deterministic dose and risk calculations. Lognormal distributions based on data from refs 2,4,18 were developed for probabilistic calculations [UA soil: mean 0.423 μg/g (standard deviation (sd) = 0.523), CSA soil: mean 15.8 μg/g (sd =11.9); UA SHD: mean 1.10 μg/g (sd =1.08), CSA SHD: mean 11.4 μg/g (sd = 9.41)]. Lognormal distributions and corresponding geometric means were chosen to reflect the frequent observation of distributions of this type in environ- mental contaminant concentrations. For deterministic calculations of SHD ingestion, we used recently published SHD intake rates for children determined using the Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation (SHEDS) model for multimedia pollutants. 34 The SHEDS model addresses two pathways of exposure to dust: direct ingestion of SHD from hand-to-mouth contact, and indirect ingestion resulting from mouth contact with inanimate objects such as toys (especially relevant for preschool children). The model takes into account the importance of SHD loading, a strong predictor of blood lead levels related to dust-mediated exposure. The model relies on the Consolidated Human Activity Database, which has activity diaries for over 22000 individuals.35 We employed the mean SHD IR estimate from ref. 34 of 27 mg/day (rounded to two significant figures to account for the inherent uncertainty of the model) for children 3−<6 years of age as a central tendency estimate (CTE) of exposure for children 0−6 years of age, and the 95th percentile values from 34 as a reasonable maximum estimate (RME) of exposure. For individuals older than 6 years of age, who are expected to be away from the home for much of the day, we used one-half of the early childhood CTE dust IR (13 mg/day), and 27 mg/day as the RME dust IR. Few data are available for SHD IRs for adults, but previous risk assessments have employed adult SHD IRs of 20 and 50 mg/day, 22,36 higher than the IRs used in this analysis. The distribution of child IRs for SHD was adapted from ref. 34 (mean = 27 mg/day, sd = 40, log-normal) for probabilistic dose and risk calculations, and a similarly shaped distribution was postulated for SHD IR for 6− 70 years of age (mean = 13.3 mg/day, sd = 19.6, log-normal). 34 For deterministic calculations of soil ingestion, default IRs from the Exposure Factors Handbooks and the Child Specific Exposure Factors Handbook, 37,38 with some minor modifica- tions, were used. For persons of all ages, 50 mg/day was used for the CTE soil IR, and the RME IRs used were 400 mg/day from 1−13 years of age and 100 mg/day from 13−70 years of age. For a distribution for soil IRs for children 0−<13 years of age, we used data generated by the SHEDS model that indicated an arithmetic mean of 60.6 mg/day, sd of 80.5 mg/ day.39 These values are similar to those from a recent review of all published tracer studies on soil ingestion by children, in which the arithmetic mean was estimated at 63 mg/day, with a median of 27 mg/day and a 95th percentile of 195 mg/day. 39 The SHEDS model result was used as the basis for probabilistic calculations of dose and risk in children. For children and adults 13−70 years of age, the arithmetic mean of all available soil ingestion rates from tracer studies was 46 mg/day (rounded to 50 mg/day in deterministic calculations). 39 A distribution similar to that for soil ingestion in children was postulated, and an appropriate standard deviation was calculated for use in a Monte Carlo analysis (http://www.epa.gov/oswer/ riskassessment/rags3adt/index.htm). Adult IRs have been updated in the most recent (2011) version of the Exposure Factors Handbook to indicate a central tendency for adults of 20 mg/day for the soil IR and 30 mg/day for the dust IR. 40 These values rely on relative proportions of soil and dust ingestion for children, and thus we have chosen to retain the value of 50 mg/day (i.e., 46 mg/day, rounded to one significant digit) from the previous Handbook, which also is the value indicated in the current Handbook for adults 18−21 years of age.40 Recalculation of risk estimates using soil and dust ingestion rates in the 2011 version of the Handbook do not change the overall conclusions of this assessment. Body weight distributions were obtained from a recent (2007) analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data set. 41 Exposure fre- quency was set at 365 days/year in both deterministic and probabilistic calculations. Exposure Scenarios.Five scenarios that describe ex- posures to combinations of UA- and CSA-affected SHD and soil were used (Table 1): exposures in UA-adjacent spaces (UA exposures) during a 70-year lifetime (scenario 1); exposure in CSA-adjacent spaces (CSA exposures) during a 70-year lifetime (scenario 2); CSA exposures during 0−<6 years of age followed by UA exposures during 6−70 years of age (scenario 3); CSA exposures during childhood (0−<18 years of age) followed by UA exposures during adulthood (18−70 years of age, scenario 4); and UA exposures during 0−<18 years of age followed by CSA exposures during adulthood (18−70 years of age, scenario 5). Incremental ELCR values for timeframes of 1 year from 0 to 18 years of age and of 1 year from 18 to 70 years of age were summed to arrive at a lifetime ELCR value for each scenario. Exposure to UA-affected environments during a 70-year lifetime (Scenario 1) was assumed to represent urban background for the purpose of evaluating the potential differences in risks associated with exposure to CSA-affected media. Scenario 1 considers lifetime exposures to SHD and soil not affected by PAHs associated with CSA pavement, and thus represents a reasonable measure of urban background. Table 1. Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) Estimates for Central Tendency (CTE) and Reasonable Maximum (RME) Exposures in Five Scenarios for Carcinogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons by Ingestion of Settled House Dust, Soil, And Both Media a age of exposure (years of age) settled house dust only soil only dust and soil scenario UA CSA CTE RME CTE RME CTE RME 10−70 N/A 1.5 × 10−6 4.4 × 10−6 1.4 × 10−6 6.7 × 10−6 2.9 × 10−6 1.1 × 10−5 2 N/A 0−70 2.0 × 10−5 5.8 × 10−5 8.9 × 10−5 4.3 × 10−4 1.1 × 10−4 4.9 × 10−4 36−70 0−<6 1.1 × 10−5 3.8 × 10−5 2.9 × 10−5 2.3 × 10−4 4.0 × 10−5 2.7 × 10−4 418−70 0−<18 1.4 × 10−5 4.4 × 10−5 4.7 × 10−5 3.4 × 10−4 6.1 × 10−5 3.9 × 10−4 50−<18 18−70 8.2 × 10−6 1.8 × 10−5 4.3 × 10−5 9.0 × 10−5 5.1 × 10−5 1.1 × 10−4 aUA, unsealed asphalt pavement; CSA, coal-tar-sealed asphalt pavement; N/A, not applicable. Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091103 CHEJ Asphalt Fact pack 115 For the probabilistic calculations, Monte Carlo simulations were performed for 10 000 trials. These simulations were conducted only for scenarios covering lifetime exposures to UA environments (scenario 1), lifetime exposures to CSA environ- ments (scenario 2), and exposures to CSA-affected media in the first 6 years of life (scenario 3). Estimation of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk.The ELCR from exposure to a chemical is described in terms of the probability that an exposed individual will develop cancer by age 70 because of that exposure. 42 Estimates of BaPEQ dose were multiplied by the oral cancer slope factor for BaP of 7.3 per mg/kg/day. 43 For single-year calculations of risk (0−18 years of age), the slope factor was divided by 70, and for calculation of risk for adulthood (18−70 years of age), it was divided by (70/52); risk estimates were generated by summing yearly risks from 0−18 years of age and during adulthood (i.e., 18−70 years of age). In general, the USEPA considers excess cancer risks less than 1 × 10−6 so small as to be negligible (i.e., de minimus), and those greater than 1 × 10−4 to be sufficiently large that some sort of remediation is desirable. 42 Excess cancer risks between 1 × 10−6 and 1 × 10−4 generally are considered to be acceptable, although this is evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the USEPA may determine that risks lower than 1 × 10−4 are not sufficiently protective and warrant remedial action.42 ■RESULTS Deterministic Dose Estimates.Estimated lifetime CTE BaPEQ dose from ingestion of SHD and soil in CSA-affected settings was 38 times greater than that estimated for UA- affected settings (Supporting Information Table S3). Maximum doses occur at young ages (Figure 1), when body weights are lower and ingestion rates are higher than later in life (Supporting Information Table S3). About 50% of the total estimated RME lifetime dose occurs during 0−<6 years of age, and about 80% occurs during 0−<18 years of age. Doses of BaPEQ for ingestion of CSA-affected soil were greater than those for CSA-affected SHD (Figure 1), comprising about 80% of the aggregate (soil + SHD) lifetime dose. The difference arises because BaPEQ concentrations and IRs are higher for CSA-affected soil than for CSA-affected SHD (Supporting Information Table S2). The CTE lifetime dose from CSA- affected SHD alone, however, is not insubstantial, exceeding the lifetime aggregate dose in UA-affected settings by a factor of 7. The RME lifetime aggregate dose estimate for CSA-affected settings is about 4.5 times higher than the CTE lifetime aggregate dose estimate. Risk Estimates.Deterministic estimates of ELCR were calculated for the five exposure scenarios (Table 1, Figure 2). Under scenario 1 conditions (urban background), soil is estimated to contribute about one-half (48%) of the aggregate (SHD + soil) CTE estimate of ELCR of 2.9 × 10−6 and the majority (61%) of the RME estimate of 1.1 × 10−5. Estimated aggregate CTE ELCR for lifetime exposure to CSA-affected settings (1.1 × 10−4; scenario 2) was 38 times higher than urban background (scenario 1) (Figure 2). About 36% of the increased ELCR attributable to ingestion of CSA- affected SHD and soil occurs during exposures during the first 6 years of life (scenario 3), when IRs are highest and body weights are lowest, and 56% occurs during the first 18 years of life (scenario 4). The RME ELCRs were from 2.2 to 6.8 times higher than CTE ELCRs across all CSA-affected scenarios (2− 5), and the difference was greatest for exposure to CSA-affected environments from 0−6 years of age (scenario 3) (Figure 2). In this analysis, ingestion of CSA-affected soil is a more important driver of risk than ingestion of CSA-affected SHD. Ingestion of soil made up about one-half (48%) of ELCR in urban background settings, but made up 72 to 84% of ELCR in CSA-affected settings (Figure 2). Over a lifetime of exposure (scenario 2, CTE), ELCR is estimated to be about 64 times greater for persons who ingest CSA-affected soil relative to their counterparts who are exposed to background concentrations; the comparable difference for CSA-affected and unaffected SHD is a factor of 13. The CTE ELCR for soil alone approaches 1 × 10−4, and the RME ELCR was estimated at 4.3 × 10−4 (Table 1). Much of the lifetime risk occurs during early childhood (0−<6 years of age, scenario 3) and all childhood (0−<18 years of age, scenario 4) exposures (33 and 53%, respectively). All RME scenarios in CSA-affected environments involving childhood exposure (scenarios 2−4) had ELCR values associated with ingestion of soil exceeding 1 × 10−4 . Although SHD-mediated exposure to BaPEQ in CSA settings results in less risk compared to soil-mediated exposure, it nonetheless represents a substantial increase in risk over urban background exposure. This is a particularly important pathway of exposure for children. Even more of the lifetime risk Figure 1.Aggregate doses of benzo[a]pyrene equivalents (BaPEQ) (ng/kg/day) from settled house dust and soil in settings adjacent to unsealed asphalt and coal tar-sealed asphalt pavement (UA and CSA, respectively) by year for central tendency and reasonable maximum exposures. Adult years (i.e., 18−70 years of age) are noted as “18- adult.”. Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091104 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 116 occurs during early childhood than it does for soil-mediated exposure, with 48 and 64% of the SHD-mediated risk occurring during the first 6 and 18 years of life, respectively. This difference results because the CTE IR for SHD is decreased to one-half its value at age 6 but the CTE IR for soil remains constant from 0−70 years of age (Supporting Information Table S2). All RME scenarios in CSA-affected environments (scenarios 2−5) had ELCR values for ingestion of SHD alone exceeding 1 × 10−5 but none exceeding 1 × 10−4. A probabilistic analysis (Monte Carlo) for scenarios 1, 2, and 3 yielded ELCR estimates in a range similar to those estimated deterministically (Table 2, Figure 3), where the 50th percentile statistic is treated as analogous to the CTE and the 95th percentile statistic is treated as analogous to the RME. As with deterministic estimates, probabilistic estimates for ELCR in CSA-affected settings for soil exposures (scenarios 2 and 3) were markedly higher than those for urban background settings (scenario 1) (Table 2). Probabilistic CTE ELCR estimates were very similar to deterministic estimates (Table 1), within 21% for urban background (scenario 1) and identical for 70-year lifespan and the first 6 years of life (scenarios 2 and 3). Probabilistic 95th percentile ELCR estimates differed more from the deterministic estimates, exceeding the deterministic RME for urban background (scenario 1) by a factor of more than 2 and being less than it for the first 6 years of life (scenario 3) by 26%, but the probabilistic and deterministic RME estimates for a 70-year lifespan (scenario 2) were identical. Sensitivity analyses for the probabilistic ELCR estimates indicate that the proportion of the variability in ELCR contributed by contaminant concentration and IR was different for each scenario (Table 3). For environments where ingestion of UA-affected media only was considered (scenario 1), BaPEQ concentration contributed most of the variability and IR Figure 2.Deterministic excess lifetime cancer risk estimates for the five exposure scenarios described in Table 1 under central tendency and reasonable maximum exposure conditions. Risk attributable to dust is shown in black, and risk attributable to soil is shown in gray. Table 2. Summary of Probabilistic Estimates (Monte Carlo Simulations, 10000 runs, 50th Percentile Represents the Central Tendency Exposure and 95th Percentile Represents the Reasonable Maximum Exposure) of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk for Exposure Scenarios 1−3 settled house dust only soil only dust and soil scenario 50th 95th 50th 95th 50th 95th 1 1.2 × 10−6 1.4 × 10−5 1.1 × 10−6 1.6 × 10−5 3.5 × 10−6 2.6 × 10−5 2 1.8 × 10−5 1.2 × 10−4 7.3 × 10−5 4.3 × 10−4 1.1 × 10−4 4.9 × 10−4 3 8.3 × 10−6 6.1 × 10−5 2.4 × 10−5 1.7 × 10−4 4.0 × 10−5 2.0 × 10−4 Figure 3.Comparison of deterministic and probabilistic estimates of excess lifetime cancer risk for three exposure scenarios for central tendency exposures (CTE) and reasonable maximum exposures (RME). Deterministic CTE estimates are analogous to 50th percentile probabilistic values, and deterministic RME estimates are analogous to 95th percentile probabilistic values. Black and gray bars depict deterministic and probabilistic risk estimates, respectively. Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091105 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 118 contributed relatively little. When lifetime exposure or exposure only during the first 6 years of life to CSA environments was considered (scenarios 2 and 3), IR contributed a greater proportion of the variability in estimated ELCR. ■DISCUSSION Four exposure scenarios for nondietary ingestion of CSA- affected soil and SHD resulted in estimated BaPEQ doses that are substantially elevated over the dose for urban background (Table 1). BaPEQ doses from nondietary ingestion of CSA- affected soil and dust range from 91 ng/kg/day during the first year of life to 9.1 ng/kg/day for adults. For comparison, Chuang et al. (1999) 26 reported dietary intake for the sum of B2 PAHs for children (2−4 years of age) in North Carolina as 24.8 ng/kg/day. Dietary intakes among adults of B2 PAHs have been estimated at between 1 and 5 μg/day on average (about 12.5−62.5 ng/kg/day). 44 We recently demonstrated that exposures to B2 PAHs in CSA-affected SHD are expected to exceed dietary intakes in children. 28 ELCRs associated with CSA-affected settings (scenarios 2− 5) greatly exceed those for the urban background (scenario 1). To put CSA-associated ELCRs into context, estimated CTE ELCR for lifetime exposure to CSA-affected soils (8.9 × 10−5) exceeds that for urban soils in Beijing, China (1.77 × 10−6),45 and CTE ELCR for lifetime exposure to CSA-affected SHD (2.0 × 10−5) exceeds that for exposure to urban surface dust (pavement and road dust) in an industrial area in China (1.05 × 10−6).46 However, estimated RME ELCR for lifetime exposure to CSA-affected SHD (5.82 × 10−5) was less than that reported by Maertens et al. (2008) 47 for children in those residences in Ottawa, Canada, with SHD PAH in the top 10th percentile (>1 × 10−4), although the IR and SHD PAH concentrations were comparable to those used here. The difference likely arises because Maertens et al. included an adjustment factor in their risk analysis to account for exposures taking place during early life stages. ELCRs estimated here for CSA-affected settings exceed those for some other types of exposure to PAHs. For example, estimated CTE ELCRs for CSA-affected settings are much greater than those estimated for ingestion of grilled and smoked meat (2.63 × 10−7)48 and for inhalation of granulates associated with intense 30-year activity on artificial turf (1 × 10−6 for presumed worst case conditions).49 The increased cancer risk associated with CSA-affecting settings likely affects a large number of people in the U.S. Use of the product is widespread in the U.S. east of the Continental Divide,4 and it also is used in some parts of Canada. 8 Sealed parking lots constituted 1−2% of the area of four mixed commercial and residential neighborhoods mapped in Texas; in a suburb of Chicago, IL, sealcoated pavement constituted 4% of the area, and 89% of driveway area was sealcoated. 18 Uncertainty.The analysis presented here contains several sources of uncertainty, and many of the choices made for the analysis result in conservative (lower) estimates of ELCR. Concentrations of one of the B2 PAH, diBahA, were not included in computation of BaPEQ because analytical difficulties resulted in nondetections in all but one of the SHD samples. 18 The cancer slope factor used was 7.3; Schneider et al., (2002) 50 on the basis of oral carcinogenicity studies with BaP and coal-tar mixtures, recommend use of a slope factor of 11.5, which would increase ELCR reported here by about 50%. No adjustment factor was used to account for increased risk associated with exposure during early life stages, when children are more susceptible to the effects of chemical exposures.51 Although seven carcinogenic PAHs, all of which have a RPF ≤1, were considered here, the USEPA recently has proposed that 24 PAHs, with RPFs ranging from 0.1 to 60, be used to determine the relative potency of PAH mixtures. 52 At least three of the PAHs with proposed RPFs exceeding 1 benzo[c]fluorene, proposed RPF of 30; dibenz[a,h]anthracene, proposed RPF of 10; and dibenzo[a,l]pyrene, proposed RPF of 30 52are components of coal tar, 53,54 and BaPEQs associated with coal tar are estimated to increase by almost a factor of 10 if the proposed RPFs are adopted. 55 Other elements of the analysis also contributed to conservative ELCRs estimates. Most importantly, the risk analysis presented here did not consider nondietary ingestion of outdoor dust on parking lots, driveways, and playgrounds with coal-tar-based sealcoat, as no data are available that quantify IR for these settings. PAH concentrations in dust from coal-tar- sealcoated pavement, however, are 10 or more times higher than those measured in CSA-affected SHD and soil: median BaPEQ concentrations reported range from 60 2 to 392 μg/g.18 Ingestion of 4−8 mg of dust from CSA parking lots per day in children less than 6 years of age would add 100 ng BaPEQ/kg/ day to the overall dose (data not shown). By comparison, the maximum calculated dose in the CTE scenarios is 91 ng/kg/ day. Further, the BaPEQ concentrations for CSA SHD in the analysis presented here might underrepresent typical BaPEQ associated with CSA-affected environments, because the samples used as representative were collected in Austin in 2008, about 2 1/2 years after use of coal-tar-based pavement sealant was banned in that city. 56 It is not known if or how rapidly concentrations of PAH in SHD decrease as sealant on Table 3. Proportion of the Variability in Estimates of Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk Contributed by Parameters Considered ab scenario 1 scenario 2 scenario 3 dust alone soil alone dust and soil dust alone soil alone c dust and soil c dust alone soil alone dust and soil [BaPEQ]UA dust 0.71 --0.33 ------0.03 -- [BaPEQ]CSA dust ------0.55 0.07 0.35 --0.07 [BaPEQ]UA soil -- 0.80 0.42 -------- 0.01 0.01 [BaPEQ]CSA soil -------- 0.50 0.44 -- 0.32 0.25 IRdust, 0−6 years 0.13 --0.06 0.19 --0.02 0.59 --0.12 IRdust, 6−70 years 0.16 --0.08 0.24 --0.04 0.03 --0.01 IRsoil, 0−18 years -- 0.13 0.07 -- 0.30 0.26 -- 0.66 0.53 IRsoil, 18−70 years -- 0.06 0.03 -- 0.18 0.15 -- a[BaPEQ, benzo[a]pyrene equivalents; UA, unsealed asphalt pavement; CSA, coal-tar-sealed pavement; IR, ingestion rate]. b-- No contribution to variability is expected from this parameter. cBody weight 18−70 years of age contributed ∼1% to variability of estimates. Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091106 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 119 the adjacent pavement ages. Inhalation of gas-phase PAHs also was not considered here, and recent measurements of air concentrations of PAHs indicate relatively high concentrations above old (3.6−8 yr) coal-tar-based sealant 58 and very high concentrations above pavement within hours to weeks following sealant application. 57 Other sources of uncertainty in this risk analysis include choice of IRs, assumption of 100% bioavailability, sample size, and dust loading. Ingestion rate contributed a large proportion of the variability in estimated ELCR associated with CSA- affected settings. For this analysis we used IRs from. 37,39 Dust IRs recently recommended by the USEPA are higher than those used here, but soil IRs are lower. 40 Recalculation of risk estimates using those in the 2011 updated version of the Handbook slightly changes risk estimates but does not change the overall conclusions of our assessment. The assumption of 100% bioavailability likely causes moderate overstatement of risks from ingestion of CSA-affected SHD and soil. The bioavailability of PAHs in abraded particles of coal tar-based sealant has not been investigated, and thus the relevance of studies of the bioavailability of BaP and other B2 PAHs in soil may or may not be robustly applicable to these calculations. Our calculations indicate that bioavailability on the order of 20% would still be associated with risk in excess of 1 × 10−4 in some exposure scenarios (RME, scenario 2). Bioavailability of PAHs in soil has been observed to range as high as 90%. 21 The data set available for PAHs specifically associated with CSA- and UA-affected settings was relatively small. In particular, data from only three soil samples were available for soil adjacent to unsealed asphalt. However, these concentrations are consistent with upper ranges of concen- trations reported in the literature as “background.”Sensitivity analysis indicates that the much of the variability in risk estimates arises from concentrations of BaPEQ in SHD and soil (Table 3). Finally, the data on dust loading adds some uncertainty to the risk estimates. Recall that one data point in the UA SHD data set is an outlier (883 μg/cm2, compared to a mean of 85 μg/cm2 for the remaining 6 data points). Reanalysis of the set without this data point shows that CSA settings had a significantly higher dust loading than the UA settings (p = 0.043, Student’s t test). The source of this difference between the sampled settings is unclear. In this analysis, lifetime estimated ELCRs for deterministic and probabilistic approaches were virtually identical (Tables 1 and 2, Figure 3). This indicates that point estimates for these parameters, as applied here, reasonably represent values in the center and upper reaches of the distributions of these data. Several of the factors contributing to uncertainty associated with the ELCRs presented here could be more fully accounted for with additional data, resulting in less uncertainty. Because the recognition of coal-tar-based pavement sealants as a source of PAHs to the environment is relatively recent (the first study was published in 2004), there are data gaps for such information as bioavailability of PAHs associated with dried sealant particles, IRs for pavement dust, and change in PAH concentrations in CSA-affected soils and SHD with time since sealant application. Additional data on PAH concentrations in CSA-affected soils and SHD will result in more robust ELCR estimates. Estimates of excess cancer risk arising from exposure to carcinogenic PAHs in settled house dust and soil near coal tar- sealed parking lots exceeded 1 × 10−4 for the central tendency estimate for lifetime exposure, and for reasonable maximum estimates for all exposure scenarios considered. Exposure to these compounds in settled house dust is a particularly important source of risk for children younger than 6 years of age, as they are expected to ingest this material at higher rates. This indicates that the use of coal-tar-based pavement sealants magnifies aggregate exposures to B2 PAHs in children and adults in residences adjacent to where these products are used, and is associated with human health risks in excess of widely accepted standards. Although the analysis presented here is based on a limited data set, the results indicate that biomonitoring might be warranted to characterize the exposure of children and adults to PAHs associated with coal-tar-based pavement sealant. ■ASSOCIATED CONTENT *S Supporting Information Additional information on dose and exposure assumptions, estimated doses, and dust loading. Table S1. Mass of house dust (<0.5 mm) collected, area sampled, surface dust loading, and benzo[a]pyrene equivalent (BaPEQ) loading for 18 apartments in the Austin, Tex., area. Table S2. Exposure assumptions for deterministic and probabilistic risk calculations. Table S3. Theoretical yearly doses of benzo[a]pyrene equivalents under central tendency and reasonable maximum exposure conditions. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org. ■AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author *Phone: (254) 710-2468; fax: (254) 710-2580; E-mail: sp_ williams@baylor.edu, spencer.williams.phd@gmail.com. Notes The authors declare no competing financial interest. ■ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was conducted without the benefit of external funding. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. ■ABBREVIATIONS: AT averaging time B2 PAH carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (clas- sified B2 by EPA) BaP benzo[a]pyrene CSA coal-tar-sealed asphalt CTE central tendency exposure BaPEQ benzo[a]pyrene equivalents BW body weight ED exposure duration EF exposure frequency ELCR excess lifetime cancer risk IR ingestion rate PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon RME reasonable maximum exposure RPF relative potency factor SHD settled house dust SHEDS Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation UA unsealed asphalt Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091107 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 120 ■REFERENCES (1) Mahler, B. J.; Van Metre, P. C.; Bashara, T. J.; Wilson, J. T.; Johns, D. A. Parking lot sealcoat: An unrecognized source of urban polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.Environ. Sci. Technol.2005,39 (15), 5560−5566. (2)Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Released from Sealcoated Parking Lotsa Controlled Field Experiment to Determine if Sealcoat Is a Significant Source of PAHs in the Environment; University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. Final Report; University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center: Durham, NH, 2010. (3) Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J. Contribution of PAHs from coal- tar pavement sealcoat and other sources to 40 U.S. lakes.Sci. Total Environ.2010,409 (2), 334−344, DOI: S0048-9697(10)00847-8[pii] 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.08.014. (4) Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J.; Wilson, J. T. PAHs underfoot: contaminated dust from coal-tar sealcoated pavement is widespread in the United States.Environ. Sci. Technol.2009,43 (1), 20−25. (5) Yang, Y.; Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J.; Wilson, J. T.; Ligouis, B.; Razzaque, M. D.; Schaeffer, D. J.; Werth, C. J. Influence of coal-tar sealcoat and other carbonaceous materials on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon loading in an urban watershed.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010,44 (4), 1217−1223, DOI: 10.1021/es902657h. (6) Mahler, B. J.; Van Metre, P. C.; Wilson, J. T.Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and major and trace elements in simulated rainfall runoff from parking lots, Austin, Texas, 2003 (version 3); U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report: 2004−1208, p. 87 (7)Scoggins,M.;Ennis,T.;Parker,N.;Herrington,C.A photographic method for estimating wear of coal tar sealcoat from parking lots.Environ. Sci. Technol.2009,43 (13), 4909−4914. (8) Diamond Environmental Group. Reconnaissance study of coal tar sealcoat application in Toronto and an eastimate of related PAH emissions. Departments of Geography and Chemical Engineering, University of Toronto, 2011. (9) National Institutes of Health. Coal tars and coal-tar pitches. National Institute of Environmental Health Science, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, 2011. (10) Kaushik, S.; Rainal, R. K.; Bhatiaz, G.; Verma, G.; Khandal, R. K. Modification of coal tar pitch by chemical method to reduce benzo(a)pyrene.Curr. Sci.2007,93 (4), 540−544. (11)Water: CWA Methods, Priority Pollutants; http://water.epa.gov/ scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants.cfm. (12) Mahler, B. J.; Metre, P. C.; Crane, J. L.; Watts, A. W.; Scoggins, M.; Williams, E. S. Coal-tar-based pavement sealcoat and PAHs: implications for the environment, human health, and stormwater management.Environ. Sci. Technol.2012,46 (6), 3039−3045. (13) Van Metre, P. C.; Mahler, B. J.; Furlong, E. T. Urban sprawl leaves its PAH signature.Environ. Sci. Technol.2000,34 (19), 4064− 4070, DOI: 10.1021/es991007n. (14) Bryer, P. J.; Scoggins, M.; McClintock, N. L. Coal-tar based pavement sealant toxicity to freshwater macroinvertebrates.Environ. Pollut.2010,158 (5), 1932−1937, DOI: 10.1016/j.env- pol.2009.10.038. (15) Scoggins, M.; McClintock, N. L.; Gosselink, L.; Bryer, P. Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons below coal-tar-sealed parking lots and effects on stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities.J. North Am. Benthol. Soc.2007,26 (4), 694−707. (16) Bommarito, T.; Sparling, D. W.; Halbrook, R. S. Toxicity of coal-tar pavement sealants and ultraviolet radiation to Ambystoma maculatum.Ecotoxicology 2010,19 (6), 1147−1156, DOI: 10.1007/ s10646-010-0498-8. (17) Bryer, P. J.; Elliott, J. N.; Willingham, E. J. The effects of coal tar based pavement sealer on amphibian development and metamorpho- sis.Ecotoxicology 2006,15 (3), 241−247, DOI: 10.1007/s10646-005- 0055-z. (18) Mahler, B. J.; Metre, P. C.; Wilson, J. T.; Musgrove, M.; Burbank, T. L.; Ennis, T. E.; Bashara, T. J. Coal-tar-based parking lot sealcoat: An unrecognized source of PAH to settled house dust. Environ. Sci. Technol.2010,44 (3), 894−900, DOI: 10.1021/ es902533r. (19) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxico- logical profile for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Atlanta, GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1995. (20) Hoffmann, D.; Hoffmann, I. The changing cigarette, 1950− 1995.J. Toxicol. Environ. Health.1997,50 (4), 307−364, DOI: 10.1080/009841097160393. (21) Ramesh, A.; Walker, S. A.; Hood, D. B.; Guillen, M. D.; Schneider, K.; Weyand, E. H. Bioavailability and risk assessment of orally ingested polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.Int. J. Toxicol.2004, 23 (5), 301−333, DOI: WGMX5TX4L3U8CJF7 [pii]10.1080/ 10915810490517063. (22) Jones-Otazo, H. A.; Clarke, J. P.; Diamond, M. L.; Archbold, J. A.; Ferguson, G.; Harner, T.; Richardson, G. M.; Ryan, J. J.; Wilford, B. Is house dust the missing exposure pathway for PBDEs? An analysis of the urban fate and human exposure to PBDEs.Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005,39 (14), 5121−5130. (23) Lioy, P. J.; Freeman, N. C.; Millette, J. R. Dust: A metric for use in residential and building exposure assessment and source character- ization.Environ. Health Perspect.2002,110 (10), 969−983, DOI:sc271_5_1835 [pii]. (24) Maertens, R. M.; Bailey, J.; White, P. A. The mutagenic hazards of settled house dust: A review.Mutat. Res.2004,567 (2−3), 401− 425, DOI: S1383-5742(04)00061-4 [pii]10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.08.004. (25) Whitehead, T.; Metayer, C.; Gunier, R. B.; Ward, M. H.; Nishioka, M. G.; Buffler, P.; Rappaport, S. M. Determinants of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels in house dust.J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol.2011,21 (2), 123−132, DOI: jes200968 [pii] 10.1038/jes.2009.68. (26) Chuang, J. C.; Callahan, P. J.; Lyu, C. W.; Wilson, N. K. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposures of children in low-income families.J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol.1999,9 (2), 85−98. (27) Wilson, N. K.; Chuang, J. C.; Lyu, C.; Menton, R.; Morgan, M. K. Aggregate exposures of nine preschool children to persistent organic pollutants at day care and at home.J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol.2003,13 (3), 187−202, DOI: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500270 [pii]. (28) Williams, E. S.; Mahler, B. J.; Van Metre, P. C. Coal-tar pavement sealants might substantially increase children’s PAH exposures.Environ. Pollut.2012,164,40−41 DOI:. (29) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). EPA/540/1-89/002; Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, 1989. (30) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydro- carbons. EPA/600/R-93/089; Office of Research and Development: Washington, DC, 1993. (31) Nam, J. J.; Sweetman, A. J.; Jones, K. C. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in global background soils.J. Environ. Monit. 2009,11 (1), 45−48, DOI: 10.1039/b813841a. (32) Lemieux, C. L.; Lambert, I. B.; Lundstedt, S.; Tysklind, M.; White, P. A. Mutagenic hazards of complex polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures in contaminated soil.Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008,27 (4), 978−990, DOI: 07-157 [pii]10.1897/07-157.1. (33) Turczynowicz, L.; Fitzgerald, D. J.; Nitschke, M.; Mangas, S.; McLean, A. Site contamination health risk assessment case study involving tenant relocation from a former gasworks site.J. Toxicol. Environ. Health A 2007,70 (19), 1638−1653, DOI: 781628196 [pii] 10.1080/15287390701434737. (34) Ozkaynak, H.; Xue, J.; Zartarian, V. G.; Glen, G.; Smith, L. Modeled estimates of soil and dust ingestion rates for children.Risk Anal.2010,31 (4), 592−608, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539- 6924.2010.01524.x. (35)Consolidated Human Activity Database; (http://www.epa.gov/ chadnet1/). . (36) Harrad, S.; Ibarra, C.; Diamond, M.; Melymuk, L.; Robson, M.; Douwes, J.; Roosens, L.; Dirtu, A. C.; Covaci, A. Polybrominated Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091108 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 121 diphenyl ethers in domestic indoor dust from Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States.Environ. Int.2008,34 (2), 232− 238, DOI: S0160-4120(07)00160-2 [pii]10.1016/j.envint.2007.08.008. (37)Exposure Factors Handbook (Final Report); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, D.C., 1997. (38) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. Washington, DC, USEPA, 2008. (39) Van Holderbeke, M.; Cornelis, C.; Bierkens, J.; Torfs, R. Review of the soil ingestion pathway in human exposure assessment. VITO/ RIVM. Flanders, Belgium, VITO/RIVM, 2008. (40) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Exposure Factors Handbook, 2011 ed.; Washington, DC, USEPA, 2011. (41) Portier, K.; Tolson, J. K.; Roberts, S. M. Body weight distributions for risk assessment.Risk Anal.2007,27 (1), 11−26, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00856.x. (42)HH: Risk Characterization, Region 8; http://ehp03.niehs.nih. gov/static/instructions.action#type. (43)Integrated Risk Information System, Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) (CASRN 50−32−8); http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0136.htm. (44) Menzie, C. A.; Potocki, B. B.; Santodonato, J. Exposure to Carcinogenic PAHs in the Environment.Environ. Sci. Technol.1992, 26 (7), 1278−1284. (45) Peng, C.; Chen, W.; Liao, X.; Wang, M.; Ouyang, Z.; Jiao, W.; Bai, Y. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban soils of Beijing: Status, sources, distribution and potential risk.Environ. Pollut.2011, 159 (3), 802−808, DOI: S0269-7491(10)00511-7 [pii]10.1016/ j.envpol.2010.11.003. (46) Wang, W.; Huang, M. J.; Kang, Y.; Wang, H. S.; Leung, A. O.; Cheung, K. C.; Wong, M. H. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban surface dust of Guangzhou, China: Status, sources and human health risk assessment.Sci. Total Environ.2011,409 (21), 4519−4527, DOI: S0048-9697(11)00748-0 [pii]10.1016/j.scito- tenv.2011.07.030. (47) Maertens, R. M.; Yang, X.; Zhu, J.; Gagne, R. W.; Douglas, G. R.; White, P. A. Mutagenic and carcinogenic hazards of settled house dust. I: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content and excess lifetime cancer risk from preschool exposure.Environ. Sci. Technol.2008,42 (5), 1747−1753. (48) Alomirah, H.; Al-Zenki, S.; Husain, A.; Sawaya, W.; Ahmed, N.; Gevao, B.; Kannan, K. Benzo[a]pyrene and total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) levels in vegetable oils and fats do not reflect the occurrence of the eight genotoxic PAHs.Food Addit. Contam. Part A: Chem. Anal. Control Expo. Risk Assess 2010,27 (6),869−878. (49) Menichini, E.; Abate, V.; Attias, L.; De Luca, S.; di Domenico, A.; Fochi, I.; Forte, G.; Iacovella, N.; Iamiceli, A. L.; Izzo, P.; Merli, F.; Bocca, B. Artificial-turf playing fields: Contents of metals, PAHs, PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs, inhalation exposure to PAHs and related preliminary risk assessment.Sci. Total Environ.2011,409 (23), 4950− 4957, DOI: S0048-9697(11)00760-1[pii]10.1016/j.scito- tenv.2011.07.042. (50) Schneider , K.; Roller, M.; Kalberlah, F.; Schuhmacher-Wolz , U. Cancer risk assessment for oral exposures to PAH mixtures.J. Appl. Toxicol.2002,22 (1), 73−83. (51) World Health Organization. Principles for evaluating health risks in children associated with exposure to chemicals. Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. (52) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development of a relative potency factor (RPF) approach for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures. Washington, DC, 2010. (53) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxico- logical profile for creosote. Atlanta, GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 2002. (54) Wise, S. A.; Poster, D. L.; Leigh, S. D.; Rimmer, C. A.; Mossner, S.; Schubert, P.; Sander, L. C.; Schantz, M. M. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in a coal tar standard reference material–SRM 1597a updated.Anal. Bioanal. Chem.2010,398 (2), 717−728, DOI: 10.1007/s00216-010-4008-x. (55) Rohr, A. C. Comments on development of a relative potency factor (RPF) approach for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) mixtures, external review draft. Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, 2010. (56) City of Austin. An ordinance amending the city code to add a new chapter 6−6 relating to coal tar pavement products, creating offenses, and providing penalties. 2051117−070. Austin, Texas, 2005. (57) Van Metre, P. C.; Majewski, M. S.; Mahler, B. J.; Foreman, W. T.; Braun, C. L.; Wilson, J. T.; Burbank, T. L. PAH volatilization following application of coal-tar-sealed pavement.Atmos. Environ. 2012,51, 108−115. (58) Van Metre, P. C.; Majewski, M. S.; Mahler, B. J.; Foreman, W. T.; Braun, C. L.; Wilson, J. T.; Burbank, T. L. Volatilization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from coal-tar-sealed pavement. Chemosphere 2012,88 (1), 1−7, DOI: S0045-6535(11)01466-4[pii] 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.12.072. Environmental Science & Technology Article dx.doi.org/10.1021/es303371t |Environ. Sci. Technol.2013, 47, 1101−11091109 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 122 Respiratory Symptoms and Lung Functional Impairments Associated with Occupational Exposure to Asphalt Fumes M Neghab1, F Zare Derisi2, J Hassanzadeh3 1.Department of Occupational Health and Research Center for Health Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran 2.Student Research Committee, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran 3.3Department of Clinical Epidemiology, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran Correspondence to Forough Zare Derisi, MSc Student of Occupational Health, Student Research Committee, School of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran Tel/Fax: +98-71-3627-2045 E-mail: zarederis@sums.ac.ir Received: Jun 27, 2014 Accepted: Aug 27, 2014 Abstract Background: Controversy exists as to the potential of asphalt fumes to induce respiratory symptoms and lung functional impairments. Objective: To examine the respiratory effects, if any, of occupational inhalation exposure to asphalt fumes. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 74 asphalt workers and 110 unexposed employees were investigated. The prevalence of respiratory symptoms among subjects was investigated by a standard questionnaire. Additionally, the parameters of pulmonary function were measured both, prior to exposure and at the end of work-shift. Furthermore, to assess the extent to which workers were exposed to asphalt fumes, total particulate and the benzene-soluble fraction were measured in different worksites. Results: The mean levels of exposure to total particulate and benzene-soluble fraction in asphalt fumes were estimated to be 0.9 (SD 0.2) and 0.3 (SD 0.1) mg/m3, respectively. Mean values of FEV1, both prior to the exposure (89.58% [SD 18.69%] predicted value) and at the end of shift (85.38% [SD 19.4%]), were significantly (p<0.05) smaller than those of the comparison subjects (93.88% [SD 13.93%]). Similarly, pre- shift (87.05 [SD 8.57]) and post-exposure (89.95 [SD 6.85]) FEV1/FVC ratio were both significantly (p<0.01) lower than those of the unexposed employees (107.56 [SD 9.64]). Moreover, the prevalence of respiratory symptoms such as cough and wheezing in exposed employees were 41% and 42%, respectively. The corresponding values for comparison subjects were 10.0% and 3.6%, respectively (p<0.001). The pattern of changes in parameters of lung function in asphalt workers was consistent with that of chronic obstructive lung disease. Conclusion: Significant decrements in the parameters of pulmonary function as well as, a significant increase in the prevalence of respiratory symptoms in asphalt paving workers compared to their CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 123 unexposed counterparts provided evidence in favor of a significant association between exposure to asphalt fumes and lung function impairments. Keywords: Asphalt; Respiratory function tests; Signs and symptoms, respiratory; Occupational exposure; Mastic asphalt; Questionnaires; Benzene; Worksites; Threshold limit values; Air borne disease Introduction Asphalt is produced by heating and drying gravel and mixing it with 4%–5% of hot bitumen. Bitumen is the residue of the distillation of selected petroleum crude oils. Fillers and fibers are also added to modify the properties of the asphalt, and small amounts of aliphatic amines are used to improve the binding between the bitumen and the stone materials.1 Asphalt workers are exposed to a wide variety of modulators and modifiers added to the asphalt, such as antioxidants, anti-corrosive agents, fillers, fibers, oxidants, plastics, rubber, waste materials and other volatile products that are released from the asphalt.2,3 A major risk associated with exposure to asphalt is being exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and alkyl derivatives, which are byproducts of petroleum processing or combustion. These are highly carcinogenic at relatively low concentrations.1,4-6 Additionally, asphalt workers are exposed to emissions from the exhaust of passing vehicles.4,7-9 Respiratory effects of exposure to asphalt fume have been evaluated in a few studies.5 However, conclusive results have not been obtained yet. For instance, many researchers have shown a significant reduction in some parameters of pulmonary function as well as upper respiratory tract irritation and shortness of breath in asphalt workers.5,8,10-13 Some studies showed that exposure to asphalt fumes is associated with the incidence of respiratory symptoms.4,10,14,15 Moreover, bronchitis and emphysema have been reported in asphalt workers.16,17 On the other hand, some studies have not found a consistent relationship between exposure to asphalt fumes and decline in the parameters of lung function or increase in the prevalence of respiratory symptoms in asphalt workers.18 Similarly, Butler, et al,19 in a study on asphalt workers did not find an increased risk for obstructive pulmonary diseases. The issue of asphalt fumes-induced respiratory disorders is subject to debate and controversy and requires further investigation.5 The respiratory effects of asphalt fumes have so far been studied in a few countries such as USA,10,12,16, Germany,7 and Norway.1,4 However, for differences in the chemical structure and composition of asphalt concrete mixtures, the concentration of asphalt fumes to which workers were exposed, air temperature, mechanical rather than manual processing of asphalt, good occupational health practices in these countries and many other differences, the results of these studies are not necessarily comparable with those of other studies. To the best of our knowledge, no study has been conducted on this issue in Iran. We therefore, conducted this study to examine the possible respiratory effects of exposure to asphalt fumes in asphalt workers. Materials and Methods CHEJ Asphalt Fact pack 124 This cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the respiratory effects of occupational exposure to asphalt fumes in paving workers of Shiraz, southern Iran. The sample size was calculated based on the expected prevalence of respiratory illness of 5% in unexposed employees, and 20% in asphalt workers, a study power of 80%, and an α of 0.05.4 A total of 74 asphalt paving workers (exposed group) and 110 unexposed employees from governmental departments were randomly selected and served as the comparison group. The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 as revised in 2007.20 Both the exposed and unexposed participants were volunteers. No subject refused to participate in the study. All participants signed an informed consent form before commencement of the study. The protocol of the study was approved by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences Ethics Committee. None of the exposed subjects had past medical or family history of respiratory illnesses or any other chest operations or injuries. Similarly, none of the subjects in the comparison group had been exposed to asphalt fumes or other chemicals known to cause respiratory symptoms or pulmonary diseases during the course of their employment or prior to it. Only two exposed employees did not meet the criteria to enter the study and were excluded due to pre-existing medical conditions and chest operation. Measurement of the Study Variables Respiratory illness Subjects were interviewed by one of the authors (FZD). A respiratory symptom questionnaire, as suggested by the American Thoracic Society,21 with a few modifications, was administrated to the participants.22 This standardized questionnaire included questions regarding respiratory symptoms (presence or absence of regular dry and/or productive cough, wheezing, shortness of breath, etc), nasal and eye symptoms and smoking habits, as well as occupational, medical and family history of each subject. Symptoms of chronic respiratory disorders included cough with sputum at any time during the day or night for at least three months of the year and for at least two consecutive years. Information extracted from the questionnaires were then used to determine the prevalence of symptoms among the exposed and unexposed groups. Pulmonary function tests Pulmonary function tests (PFTs) were performed using a portable calibrated Vitalograph spirometer (Model ST-150, manufactured by a joint Japanese-Philippinian company, Fukuda Sangyo Co, Ltd) on-site. The parameters of pulmonary function were measured twice for the exposed group (pre-shift after a 72- hour exposure-free period and post-shift) and once for the comparison group according to the protocol the details of which are described elsewhere.23,24 The measured parameters included mean percentage predicted vital capacity (VC), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume during the first second (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF). Measurement of atmospheric concentrations of asphalt fumes CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 125 To assess the extent of subjects' exposure to airborne contaminants, atmospheric concentrations of total particulate (TP) and benzene-soluble fraction (BSF) were measured in different work areas according to the NIOSH analytical method 5042.25 Samples were collected by a personal air sampling pump (Scientific Kit Corporation) equipped with a poly-tetra-fluoro-ethylene (PTFE) membrane filter (2- µm pore size) in a 37-mm cassette filter holder. The samples were re-weighed after sampling; the concentration of TP was calculated based on the weight difference, and the total air volume sampled. After determination of TP, each filter was extracted with benzene for the determination of BSF, which is the gravimetric amount of the TP that is benzene soluble. Filters were submerged in benzene; the soluble parts were weighed to determine the amount of BSF. Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed by SPSS® ver 16.0 for Windows®. Student's t test for independent samples, χ2 or Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test and logistic and multiple linear regression analysis, were used. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Continuous variables with normal distribution were presented as mean (SD). Variables such as age, weight, height, smoking habits, education, and marital status were considered as potential confounders and their effects on the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and changes in pulmonary function indices were controlled. The initial model was constructed based on the exposure variable as well as all potential confounding variables. Using the backward elimination method and keeping the main exposure variable, asphalt fume, in the model, the final model was obtained. Results Demographic characteristics of the studied groups are presented in Table 1. No significant differences were noted for weight, height, length of employment, number of smokers, duration and intensity of smoking between the two studied groups. Nonetheless, the exposed group, on average, was about 3.5 years older than the comparison group (p=0.016). The mean atmospheric concentration of asphalt fumes did not exceed the current threshold limit value (TLV) of 0.5 mg/m3 set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH).26 Pulmonary function test parameters measured in the exposed and unexposed groups are presented in Table 2. VC, FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC declined significantly after a working day in asphalt workers compared to pre-exposure values (p<0.05). Moreover, FEV1/FVC and FEV1/VC measured pre-shift in asphalt workers were significantly (p<0.001) lower than those in the comparison group. Table 1: Demographic characteristics of the studied groups. Values are mean (SD), median [IQR], or n (%). Variable Exposed (n=74) Comparison (n=110) p value Age (yr) 37.4 (10.9) 33.8 (8.1) 0.016 Height (cm) 174.0 (7.6) 173.3 (6.9) 0.538 Weight (kg) 73.5 (12.1) 70.2 (11.9) 0.074 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 126 Length of exposure/employment (yr) 10 [15.5] 8 [6.5] 0.239 Level of education Illiterate 9 (12%) 0 (0%) 0.001 Diploma 34 (46%) 19 (17.3%) Higher education 31 (42%) 91 (82.7%) Marital status Single 8 (11%) 12 (10.9%) 0.983 Married 66 (89%) 98 (89.1%) Body mass index (kg/m2) 24.3 (3.7) 23.4 (3.8) 0.122 Smokers 19 (26%) 22 (20%) 0.364 Length of smoking (yr) 8.3 (5.7) 9.8 (7.5) 0.465 Number of cigarettes smoked per day 7.8 (6.6) 4.7 (3.0) 0.058 Air-bone concentration of TP (mg/m3) 0.9 (0.2) — — Air-bone concentration of BSF (mg/m3) 0.3 (0.1) — — Table 3 shows the prevalence of respiratory symptoms among asphalt workers and comparison group. The prevalence of all respiratory symptoms studied was significantly (p<0.001) higher in the exposed group than in the comparison group. Binary logistic regression analysis of data, where age, length of exposure, weight, height, education level, and smoking were considered independent variables, significant (p<0.001) association was found between exposure to asphalt fumes and the prevalence of all respiratory symptoms but chest tightness (Table 4). Table 2: Pulmonary function indices of asphalt workers and comparison group (before and after exposure). Values are mean (SD) percent predicted value. Variable Exposed Comparison (n=110) p value Pre-shift (n=74) Post-shift (n=74) Pre-shift vs post- shift exposed group Pre-shift exposed vs comparison group VC 91.23 (4.98) 83.34 (15.28) 93.69 (13.67) <0.001 0.251 FVC 85.91 (18.81) 78.92 (18.57) 87.58 (13.15) 0.004 0.508 FEV1 89.58 (18.69) 85.38 (19.4) 93.88 (13.93) 0.021 0.094 PEF 81.9 (22.8) 78.79 (23.64) 86.25 (18.85) 0.096 0.160 FEV1/VC 79.5 (15.35) 81.35 (16.76) 100.8 (11.91) 0.385 <0.001 FEV1/FVC 87.05 (8.57) 89.95 (6.85) 107.56 (9.64) 0.008 <0.001 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 127 Table 3: Frequency (%; 95% CI) of respiratory symptoms among asphalt workers and comparison group. All symptoms were significantly (p<0.001) more prevalent in exposed than in the comparison group. Variable Exposed (n=74) Comparison (n=110) Cough 30 (41; 29 to 52) 11 (10.0; 4.3 to 15.7) Phlegm 28 (38; 27 to 49) 10 (9.1; 3.7 to 14.5) Productive cough 27 (36; 25 to 48) 7 (6.4; 1.7 to 11.0) Wheezing 31 (42; 30 to 53) 4 (3.6; 0.1 to 7.2) Shortness of breath 22 (30; 19 to 40) 6 (5.5; 1.2 to 9.8) Chest tightness 13 (18; 9 to 26) 0 (0; 0 to 0) Table 4: Association between exposure to asphalt fumes and development of respiratory symptoms (binary logistic regression analysis). Outcome OR (95% CI) Cough 6.9 (3.1 to 15.4 ) Phlegm 6.7 (2.9 to 15.5) Productive cough 8.5 (3.4 to 21.1) Wheezing 18.1 (5.9 to 56.0) Shortness of breath 6.9 (2.6 to 18.9) After adjusting for age, length of exposure, weight, height, education level, and smoking, multiple linear regression analysis revealed a significant (p<0.001) negative correlation between exposure to asphalt fumes and FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC ratios. Exposure to asphalt fume reduced the FEV1/VC, and FEV1/FVC by 20.4% and 20.3%, respectively (Table 5). Table 5: Association between exposure to asphalt fumes and changes in pulmonary function test indices (multiple linear regression analysis). Dependent variable β (95% CI) VC –3.1 (–6.9 to 0.7) VC –1.7 (–6.3 to 2.9) FEV1 –3.6 (–8.2 to 1.1) PEF –4.4 (–10.4 to 1.6) FEV1/VC –20.4 (–24.3 to –16.5) FEV1/FVC –20.3 (–23.0 to –17.6) Discussion Apart from age and level of education, there was no significant difference between the two studied groups in terms of other variables. There was also no significant difference in the number of smokers and smoking intensity between the two groups. Therefore, it is unlikely that smoking accounted for the differences observed in spirometry results. The significant reduction in FVC, FEV1, and FEV1/FVC, and the significant increase in the respiratory symptoms are therefore, likely to be the result of exposure to asphalt fumes. This conclusion is also supported by the results of the logistic regression analysis (Table 4). CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 127 After adjusting for the important confounders, a significant association was found between exposure to asphalt fumes and prevalence of respiratory symptoms; exposure to asphalt fumes increased the prevalence of cough and wheezing by 6.9 and 18.1 fold, respectively. These observations are in agreement with the results of the Randem's study on 64 asphalt workers.4 They showed that the risk of wheezing increased by 2.6 times as a result of exposure to asphalt fumes.27 Similarly, findings from other cross-sectional studies have shown a significant increase in the prevalence of respiratory symptoms following exposure to asphalt fumes.28-32 Measurements of lung capacities before and after the exposure were the basis of assessment for acute and chronic effects of exposure to asphalt fumes. To differentiate the acute and chronic effects of exposure to asphalt fumes in this study, pulmonary function parameters were measured at the beginning (after a 72-hour exposure-free period) and at the end of shift. The average FEV1/VC and FEV1/FVC ratios in the exposed group (pre-exposure) were significantly lower than those of the comparison group that showed the chronic effect of the exposure. Furthermore, cross-shift changes in all measured pulmonary function parameters reflected the acute effect of the exposure. These changes could not be attributed to the circadian rhythms considering the circadian rhythms lead to changes in opposite direction.33 The observed changes could be attributed to asphalt fumes-induced acute partially reversible decrements in pulmonary function tests. This conclusion is further confirmed by the results of multiple linear regression analysis (Table 5) and is consistent with the findings of other studies.1,4,5,8,10,14,15 The findings of the current study are not consistent with the findings of some other studies.12,18,19 While the exact reasons for these discrepancies are not clear, factors such as difference in the air concentration of asphalt fumes in different studies, asphalt temperature, the season when the study was conducted, air velocity,26 direction of wind,34 the method asphalt was scattered (manual or mechanical), the emission model of asphalt vapors and fumes, study sample size, how confounding variables were controlled, type of statistical analysis, workload, and the personal protective equipment used may explain in part, this issue. The nature of respiratory disorder associated with occupational exposure to asphalt fumes is consistent with the pattern of obstructive lung disease. In patients with obstructive lung disease, FVC is either normal or increased. The hallmark of this type of disorder is a significant reduction in FEV1, hence, significant decrease in FEV1/FVC.35 This conclusion is in keeping with the results of some other studies where an increased incidence of airway obstruction among asphalt workers has been reported.4,36 Other cross-sectional studies have also reported that chronic bronchitis and respiratory symptoms are associated with exposure to asphalt fumes.28,30-32 However, many confounding variables such as smoking, were poorly controlled and the study power was mostly poor. The significant association between exposure to sub-TLV levels of asphalt fumes and increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms with diminished pulmonary function indices might be interpreted with certain level of skepticism. However, it has to be reiterated that these findings are not only found in this study. Other studies have already shown that exposure of dentists to sub-TLV levels of mercury was associated with sub-clinical symptoms of intoxication.37 Additionally, it is worth noting that the study was conducted in winter when, due to cold temperature, the concentrations of asphalt fumes were minimal.34 Therefore, it would plausible to assume that subjects in summer and hot seasons are exposed to higher concentrations of asphalt fumes,34 and thus, their cumulative exposure is likely to exceed the existing TLV values. This study had some limitations. Cross-sectional studies cannot establish any cause and effect relationship. For this inherent limitation, one might argue that the significant increase in the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and deteriorated lung function in asphalt workers cannot necessarily be attributed to the exposure to asphalt fumes. While true, a few lines of evidence indicate that these are very likely to be the direct consequences of exposure to asphalt fumes: 1) The exposed group had no medical or family history of chronic lung disease, injuries and surgeries on the chest during the course of their employment, or before it. 2) The exposed workers did not have any exposure to other chemicals causing respiratory disorders. 3) While the pulmonary function in the exposed group partially improved after the exposure ceased, they were still significantly different from those in comparison subjects. 4) There were no significant differences in the number of smokers and smoking intensity in two studied groups. 5) Significant association between exposure to asphalt fumes and reduction in lung function parameters was observed. And, 6) after adjusting for confounding variables, significant associations were observed between exposure to asphalt fumes and respiratory disorders in asphalt workers. Additional longitudinal studies with larger sample size, sufficient follow-up and longer duration of exposure are clearly required to further substantiate our findings. In conclusion, we found that occupational exposure to sub-TLV levels of asphalt fumes is associated with increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms as well as acute, partially reversible and chronic irreversible changes in some parameters of pulmonary function. Acknowledgements The authors sincerely thank Mr. Vahid Dirin and Mr. Sassan Heydari for their technical assistance. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 128 Conflicts of Interest: None declared. Funding Source Funding through the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Vice Chancellor for Research Affairs, contract #92-6743, partially supported these investigations. References Ulvestad B, Randem BG, Hetland S, et al. Exposure, lung function decline and systemic inflammatory response in asphalt workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 2007;33:114-21. Roberts F, Kandhal P, Brown E, et al. Hot Mix Asphalt Materials, Mixture Design, and Construction. 2nd ed. Lanham, Maryland: NAPA Education Foundation, 1996. Othmer K. Asphalt Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. vol 3. Antibiotics (Phenazines) to Bleaching Agents. John Wiley & Sons, US, 1992, pp 299-302. Randem BG. Respiratory symptoms and airflow limitation in asphalt workers. Occup Environ Med 2004;61:367-9. Raulf-Heimsoth M, Pesch B, Kendzia B, et al. Irritative effects of vapours and aerosols of bitumen on the airways assessed by non-invasive methods (suppl 1). Arch Toxicol 2011;85:S41-52. Karimi H, Mohamadzadeh H. Environmental contamination of a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, (PAHs) in asphalt and bitumen. Fourth Conference and Exhibition of Environmental Engineering, 2010. Marczynski B, Raulf-Heimsoth M, Preuss R, et al. Assessment of DNA damage in WBCs of workers occupationally exposed to fumes and aerosols of bitumen. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention 2006;15:645-51. Raulf-Heimsoth M, Pesch B, Schott K, et al. Irritative effects of fumes and aerosols of bitumen on the airways: results of a cross-shift study. Arch Toxicol 2007;81:35-44. Raulf-Heimsoth M, Pesch B, Spickenheuer A, et al. Assessment of irritative effects of fumes of bitumen on the airways by using non-invasive methods–results of a cross-shift study in mastic asphalt workers. J Occup Environ Hygiene 2007;4(suppl 1):223-7. Kinnes G, Miller A, Burr G. Health Hazard Evaluation Report: The Sim J. Harris Company, San Diego, California, 1996. Sylvain D, Miller A. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 94-0219-2620, Walsh Construction Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1997. Ma JYC, Barger MW, Kriech AJ, Castranova V. Effects of asphalt fume condensate exposure on acute pulmonary responses. Arch Toxicol 2000;74:452-9. Hansen ES. Cancer mortality in the asphalt industry: a ten year follow up of an occupational cohort. British J Indust Med 1989;46:582-5. Ekstrom L-G, Kriech A, Bowen C, et al. International studies to compare methods for personal sampling of bitumen fumes. J Environ Monitoring 2001;3:439-45. Norseth T, Waage J, Dale I. Acute effects and exposure to organic compounds in road maintenance workers exposed to asphalt. Am J Industrial Med 1991;20:737-44. Maizlish N, Beaumont J, Singleton J. Mortality among California highway workers. Am J Industrial Med 1988;13:363-79. Hansen ES. Mortality of mastic asphalt workers. Scand J Work Environ Health 1991;17:20-4. Gamble JF, Nicolich MJ, Barone NJ, Vincent WJ. Exposure-response of asphalt fumes with changes in pulmonary function and symptoms. Scand J work Environ Health 1999;25:186-206. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Butler MA, Burr G, Dankovic D, et al. Hazard review: health effects of occupational exposure to asphalt, 2000. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 129 Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. The declaration of Helsinki. BMJ 2007;335:624-5. Ferris BG. Epidemiology Standardization Project (American Thoracic Society). Am Rev Respir Dis 1978;118:1-120. Jahangiri M, Neghab M, Nasiri G, et al. Respiratory disorders associated with occupational inhalational exposure to bioaerosols among wastewater treatment workers of petrochemical complexes. Int J Occup Environ Med 2015;6:41-9. Neghab M, Mohraz MH, Hassanzadeh J. Symptoms of respiratory disease and lung functional impairment associated with occupational inhalation exposure to carbon black dust. J Occup Health 2011;53:432-8. Neghab M, Choobineh A. Work-related respiratory symptoms and ventilatory disorders among employees of a cement industry in Shiraz, Iran. J Occup Health 2007;49:273. Eller P, Cassinelli M. Method 5042, Benzene-soluble fraction and total particulate (asphalt fume). NIOSH Cincinnati, Ohio; 1998, pp 98-119. ACGIH. TLVs and BEIs: Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, Ohio ACGIH, 2012. Tompa A, Jakab MG, Biró A, et al. Health, genotoxicology, and immune status of road pavers in Hungary. J Occup Environ Hygiene 2007;4:154-62. Baylor C, Weaver N. A health survey of petroleum asphalt workers. Arch Environ Health 1968;17:210-4. Burr G, Tepper A, Feng A, et al. NIOSH Healht Hazard Evaluation Report: HETA 2001-0536-2864 Crumb-Rubber Modified Asphalt Paving: Occupational Exposures and Acute Health Effects. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati Ohio, 2001:42. Krasniuk E, Cherniuk V, Rossinskaia L, Chuĭ T. [The effect of manufacturing factors in asphalt-bitumen plants on the health of the workers]. Lik Sprava. 2000:106-12. [in Russian] Maintz G, Schneider W, Maczek P. [Chronic obstructive airway diseases caused by long-term occupational exposure to asphalt pyrolysis products]. Z Erkr Atmungsorgane 1987;168:71-6. [in German] Nyqvist B. [Respiratory tract symptoms in asphalt workers--another occupational bronchitis?] Lakartidningen 1978;75:1173-5. [in Swedish] Guberan E, Williams MK, Walford J, Smith MM. Circadian variation of F.E.V. in shift workers. British J Indust Med 1969;26:121-5. Spickenheuer A, Rühl R, Höber D, et al. Levels and determinants of exposure to vapours and aerosols of bitumen. Arch Toxicol 2011;85:21-8. Kumar V CR, Robbin S. Basic Pathology. 6th ed. Philadelphia, WB Saunders Company, 1997, pp 393-425. Surange N, Hoyle J. S4 Occupational asthma: is this the cause of excess respiratory symptoms and COPD described in bitumen exposed workers? Thorax 2011;66:A5-A6. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 130 Rachel's Environment & Health News #559 - Childhood Cancer and Pollution August 13, 1997 A new peer-reviewed study in England shows that children have an increased danger of getting cancer if they live within three to five kilometers (2 to 3 miles) of certain kinds of industrial facilities.[1] The study, by E.G. Knox and E.A. Gilman, finds that the danger is greatest within a few hundred yards of pollution sources and tapers off with distance. The incidence of childhood cancers per 100,000 children in England and the U.S. has been rising steadily for at least 20 years. The new study examined data for 22,458 children who died of leukemia (cancer of the blood-forming cells) or of other cancers during the years 1953 to 1980 in England. The study looked at home address at time of birth and home address at time of death, then measured the physical distance from these addresses to nearby industrial facilities. Excesses of leukemias and other cancers among children were found near the following kinds of industries: ** oil refineries, major oil storage installations, railside oil distribution terminals, and factories making bitumen (a British term for asphalt, crude petroleum and tar). ** automobile factories, auto body construction factories, and auto body repair shops; ** major users of petroleum products including paint sprayers, fiber glass fabricators, paint and varnish makers, manufacturers of solvents, plastics and detergents, and galvanizers (zinc metal platers). ** users of kilns and furnaces, including steel mills, power plants, cement manufacturers, brick makers, crematoria, and foundries for iron and steel, aluminum, and zinc. ** airfields, railways, highways, and harbors. This study was also interesting for what it did NOT find: ** Rubber manufacturers showed slight increases in childhood cancers nearby, but tire manufacturing plants did not. Likewise, brake manufacturing showed no excessive childhood cancers nearby. ** Despite the use of solvent-based cleaning, electroplating plants showed no childhood cancer increases nearby. ** Twenty-two factories making halogenated hydrocarbons (chlorinated and fluorinated) had no apparent effect but 32 other solvent manufacturers showed cancer effects up to 5 kilometers (3 miles) away. ** Metal casting (aluminum and zinc), metal forming, and welding probably account for the effects seen near automobile manufacturing plants, the authors say. However, casting and refining of lead showed no childhood cancer effects. The manufacture of automobile batteries, on the other hand, exhibited strong effects. The authors speculate that it may be the manufacture of battery casings (plastics forming, and use of solvents) that create the childhood cancer effect, rather than the lead itself. ** Other industries that did not seem to be associated with childhood cancers included agricultural fertilizer rail terminals; TV transmitters; cake and biscuit bakers; dry cell battery manufacturers; magnetic tape makers; nuclear power plants; PVC manufacturers; and the makers of wood preservatives. ** Benzene manufacturing plants were not associated with nearby clusters of childhood cancers. The known leukemia hazard from benzene may have led to special containment measures. The findings for leukemias and for other cancers were the same. Among children who had changed addresses between birth and death, the cancer hazard could only be seen near the birth address, implying that exposure to pollutants shortly before or after birth caused the cancers. Knox and Gilman, the authors of this study, have spent several years developing analytic techniques for identifying small-scale cancer clusters, usually cancers occurring within 150 to 300 meters (roughly 150 to 300 yards) of each other.[2] The authors say they are sure their techniques can now identify cancer clusters at the neighborhood level. "First, our recent analyses have effectively dispelled caveats about the reality of short range case clustering and the existence of geographically localised hazards is not now in doubt. Proximity studies are no longer concerned with this issue and can be directed solely at asking what those hazards might be," they say.[1] This latest study takes these techniques the next step and links the cancer clusters to nearby sources of pollution, particularly those involving large quantities of petroleum. The weakness of this latest study, the authors say, is that it cannot rule out the possibility that there are excessively large numbers of children living near industrialized facilities, which could create the false impression of high cancer rates. The authors examine this question as best they can, and they show that, in general, there are few residences within short distances (a few hundred yards) of major factories because associated facilities (roads, parking lots, garages, etc.) compete for space with residential buildings. The authors conclude that childhood cancers cluster around two general kinds of facilities: ** producers, refiners, distributors, and industrial users of petroleum fuels and volatile petroleum products; and ** manufacturing processes using high temperature furnaces, kilns, and combustion chambers. Some operations, notably internal combustion engines and oil fired furnaces, meet both criteria. The authors of the study say there may be three mechanisms by which childhood cancers are caused: ** Gases and volatile organic compounds reaching children or their pregnant mothers directly; ** Parents' germ cells being harmed during occupational exposures, giving rise to children who are predisposed to cancers; ** Occupational contamination carried home on clothing, skin, or breath. Of the three mechanisms, the authors say they believe direct exposure of children or their pregnant mothers is the most likely. The authors say their study may have missed many local sources of petroleum exposure of children, such as domestic and commercial heating systems, oil storage bunkers, oil delivery spills, small machine shops, bus stations, school or hospital chimneys, municipal incinerators, gasoline stations, etc. Childhood cancers could be caused by at least 3 mechanisms: ** Pollutants damaging the inherited genetic material (DNA) in cells; ** Pollutants damaging the immune system which would otherwise prevent cancer cells from surviving; ** Pollutants damaging mechanisms of cell division. (Cancer is CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 131 uncontrolled cell division.) These latest findings, that childhood cancers are clustered near industrial facilities, contradict the official view of childhood cancer, at least in the U.S. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) wrote in 1993, "Time trends in childhood cancer are not likely to be affected by environmental agents because very few are known that cause cancer within the pediatric age-span, and exposures have been rare or limited." And: "Clusters of childhood cancer occur very often by chance and almost never because of environmental agents."[3] Nevertheless, the NCI does say that children exposed to radiation (as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki) can develop cancers. Exposure to benzene could cause childhood leukemia, says NCI, because benzene affects chromosomes the same way radiation does. The children of mothers treated with diethylstilbestrol (DES) --a drug given to women in the 1950s to prevent miscarriage --can develop childhood cancers, NCI acknowledges. NCI reports that the incidence (per 100,000 children) of many childhood cancers have increased steadily during the period 1973-1990. All childhood cancers combined have increased at the rate of 0.9% per year (0.9% per year among whites, and 1.0% per year among African- Americans). Cancer of the brain and central nervous system have increased at 1.8% per year. Leukemias have increased at 1.8% per year. Non-Hodgkin's lymphomas have increased at 1.4% per year. Kidney cancer has increased at 1% per year. However, thanks to surgery, radiation treatments, and chemotherapy, death rates for all these childhood cancers have declined steadily since 1973 at an average rate of 2.9% per year even as the incidence rates have increased.[3] U.S. environmental officials discourage the kind of study reported here. Each year U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collects data on toxic releases as self-reported by industrial polluters, thus creating the annual Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI database, which is authorized by federal law. However, EPA has never assigned any staff to check the quality of the self-reported data, thus making any studies based on the TRI data suspect. Furthermore, when John R. Stockwell, a physician employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developed a technique for linking data from the TRI database with disease rates near pollution sources in Chattanooga, Tennessee, EPA officials immediately tried to fire Stockwell. (See REHW #366, #392.) Because of citizen protests, Stockwell managed to keep his job, but he has not undertaken any similar studies since then, and neither has anyone else within EPA. EPA chief Carol Browner has issued a memo specifically ordering EPA staff to "stay away from linking human health effects and the TRI data." (REHW #392) Another EPA official who tried to link industrial toxic releases to human health has also found himself in serious trouble. Brian Holtzclaw, an environmental engineer employed by EPA but "on loan" to the state of Kentucky, urged the study of massive toxic releases from an Ashland Oil refinery to see if they correlated with disease rates in neighboring communities. He tried to bring in John Stockwell to study Ashland's toxic discharges, and he himself released some pollution data to local citizens. Holtzclaw was immediately terminated from his Kentucky projects and reassigned to Atlanta, Georgia. Holtzclaw fought the reassignment. Hundreds of environmental groups and individuals all across the country have signed letters and petitions on Holtzclaw's behalf. After a legal battle, EPA --without admitting any wrongdoing -- settled with Holtzclaw for $20,000 and a written promise that he could continue to work on environmental justice issues. However, Holtzclaw's court battle against the U.S. Department of Labor and the state of Kentucky continues. He wants his job back in Kentucky and he wants his court costs reimbursed.[4] The Stockwell and Holtzclaw cases send an unmistakable message from EPA chief Carol Browner to all EPA employees: Beware. The [1] E.G. Knox and E.A. Gilman, "Hazard proximities of childhood cancers in Great Britain from 1953-80," JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Vol. 51 (1997), pgs. 151-159. [2] See E.G. Knox, "Spatial clustering of childhood cancers in Great Britain," JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Vol. 50, No. 3 (June 1996), pgs. 313-319. And: E.G. Knox, "Leukaemia clusters in childhood: geographical analysis in Britain," JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Vol. 48, No. 4 (August 1994), pgs. 369-376. And: E.G. Knox, "Leukaemia clusters in Great Britain. 1. Space-Time interactions," JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Vol. 46, No. 6 (December 1992), pgs. 566-572. And: E.G. Knox, "Leukaemia clusters in Great Britain. 2. Geographical concentrations," JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Vol. 46, No. 6 (December 1992), pgs. 573-576. And: E.A. Gilman, "Childhood Cancers: space-time distribution in Britain," JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Vol. 49, No. 2 (April 1995), pgs. 158-163. [3] Barry A. Miller, and others, editors, SEER CANCER STATISTICS REVIEW 1973-1990 [NIH Publication No. 93-2789] (Bethesda, Maryland, 1993), pgs. XXVII.1 to XXVII.15. [4] Scott Learn, "Project director says EPA won't let doctor participate," LEXINGTON [KENTUCKY] HERALD-LEADER March 20, 1994, pg. A15. And see: Andrew Melnykovych, "EPA to Pay $20,000 settlement to employee," THE [LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY] COURIER JOURNAL November 3, 1995, pg. 1. And see: Southern Organizing Committee for Economic and Social Justice (SOC), "Hundreds of Citizen Groups Call on Department of Labor to Uphold Rights of Environmental Whistleblower," press release dated October 11, 1996; for further information, contact SOC at (502) 776- 7874, or (404) 755-2855, or Mr. Holtzclaw himself at (404) 562-8868. Descriptor terms: oil industry; petroleum; cancer; childhood cancers; leukemia; brain cancer; kidney cancer; studies; england; e.g. knox; cancer clusters; automobile manufacture; automobile repair; paint; fiber glass; solvents; plastics; detergents; metal plating and finishing; boilers and industrial furnaces; bifs; crematoria; iron; steel; zinc; aluminum; cement kilns; airports; railroads harbors; rubber manufacturers; metal casting; welding; automobile batteries; emf; benzene; pvc; high-temperature combustion; diesel exhaust; internal combustion engines; Rachel's Environment & Health News is a publication of the Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone: (732) 828-9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org; http://www.rachel.org. Unless otherwise indicated, Rachel's is written by Peter Montague. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 132 relationship of pollution to human disease is a forbidden topic of study. --Peter Montague (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) ===== BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE www.BREDL.org PO BOX88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 BREDL@skybest.com (336) 982-2691 office (336)977-0852 cell ASPHALT PLANTS CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN: An overview of 7 toxic substances released from asphalt processing facilities and their known effects on human health Asphalt plants are sources of air pollution that may emit significant levels of both particulate matter and gaseous volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These pollutants are considered to bedangerous to human health. Some VOCs are also suspected carcinogens or cancer-causingagents (Fact Sheet: Information Regarding Asphalt Concrete Plants,number 5, November 1996, Ohio EPA, Division of Air Pollution Control Small Business Assistance Program). No two asphalts are chemically alike. The chemical makeup of asphalt depends on the chemical content of the original crude petroleum from which it is made. Other manufacturing methods which alter the chemical makeup of asphalt include asphalt cement additives, higher operatingtemperatures, and the use of recycled asphalt paving cause increases in toxic emissions (Letter to Dr. Ernest Fuller, Division of Air Quality, Raleigh Regional Office, from Louis Zeller, BREDL, re: Tar Heel Paving DRAFT permit #08977R00, March 12, 2001). The following are examples of seven pollutants typically found at various levels in emissionsfrom asphalt plants - hydrogen sulfide, benzene, chromium, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatichydrocarbons (PAHS), cadmium and arsenic – and the known effects of these substances onhuman health: Hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Hydrogen sulfide is a poisonous, colorless gas that is associated with the characteristic smell of rotten eggs. Exposure tends to be a problem in communities located near certain types of industrial sites that release hydrogen sulfide. People who live nearan industrial facility that emits hydrogen sulfide may be exposed to higher levels of hydrogen sulfide. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide occurs from breathing contaminated air or drinking contaminated water. Hydrogen sulfide remains in the air for about 18 hrs. after which it changesinto sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid. Hydrogen sulfide may also be released as a liquid wastefrom an industrial facility. It is not known whether children are more sensitive to hydrogen sulfidethan adults nor is it known if hydrogen sulfide causes birth defects (ToxFAQs for Hydrogen Sulfide, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, July 2006, CAS #7783-06-04.) Exposures to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide may result in respiratory distress, pulmonary edema, nervous system depression, neurobehavioral effects, tissue hypoxia, cardiovascular effects, unconsciousness and death. Exposure to lower concentrations ofhydrogen sulfide can result in less severe neurological and respiratory effects such as incoordination, loss of smell, nasal symptoms, sore throat, cough, and dyspnea. Some evidence suggests that people with asthma may be overly sensitive to hydrogen sulfide, and impairedfunction has been observed in people with asthma who were exposed to low levels of hydrogen sulfide. One community exposure study found an increased prevalence of eye irritations in residents exposed to low levels of hydrogen sulfide. Numerous case reports suggest that high exposures to respiratory arrest and pulmonary edema can occur after a brief exposure to hydrogen sulfide.Although most people recover after exposure to hydrogen sulfide many individuals report permanent or persistent neurological effects including headache, poor concentration ability andattention span, impaired short memory and motor function (Toxicological Profile for Hydrogen Sulfide, US Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2006). CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 133 Benzene.Benzene, also known as benzol, is a colorless liquid with a sweet odor. Benzene is a known carcinogen or cancer-causing agent. Benzene enters the body through the lungs,gastrointestinal tract, and across the skin. Brief exposure (5-10 minutes) to very high levels ofbenzene in air can result in death. Lower levels of exposure can cause drowsiness, dizziness, rapid heart rate, headaches, tremors, confusion, and unconsciousness. Continuous exposure to benzene can lead to anemia and excessive bleeding, and may be harmful to the immunesystem by increasing the chance for infection and perhaps lowering the body's defense against cancer. Exposure to benzene has been associated with development of a particular type of leukemia called acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The Department of Health and Human Services, theInternational Agency for Cancer Research and the EPA has determined that benzene causes cancer. Exposure to benzene may be harmful to human reproductive organs. Benzene can pass fromthe mother's blood to a fetus, but it is not known what effects exposure to benzene might haveon the developing fetus in pregnant women or on fertility in men. However, studies withpregnant animals show that breathing benzene has harmful effects on the developing fetus. These effects include low birth weight, delayed bone formation, and bone marrow damage. Children can be affected by benzene exposure in the same ways as adults, and is not known ifchildren are more susceptible to benzene poisoning than adults (Public Health Statement forBenzene, Draft for Public Comment,Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2005, CAS#: 71-43-2). Chromium.Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, animals, plants, soil, and in volcanic dust and gases. Chromium cannot be tasted and has no odor. Chromium is present in the environment in several different forms. The most common forms arechromium(0), chromium(III), and chromium(VI), also known as hexavalent chromium. Chromium(VI) and chromium(0) are usually produced by industrial processes. Breathing high levels of chromium(VI) can cause irritation to the nose, such as runny nose, nosebleeds, and ulcers and holes in the nasal septum. Chromium(VI) at high levels can damage the nose andcan cause cancer. Ingesting large amounts of chromium(VI) can cause stomach upsets and ulcers, convulsions, kidney and liver damage, and even death. Skin contact with certain chromium(VI) compounds can cause skin ulcers. Some people are extremely sensitive tochromium(VI) or chromium(III). Allergic reactions consisting of severe redness and swelling ofthe skin have been noted (ToxFAQs for Chromium, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,February 2001, CAS#: 7440-47-3). Formaldehyde.Formaldehyde is a nearly colorless gas with a pungent, irritating odor even at very low concentrations (below1 ppm). Formaldehyde is a potent sensitizer and a probable human carcinogen or cancer-causing agent. Formaldehyde is an eye, skin, and respiratory tract irritant; inhalation of vapors can produce narrowing of the bronchi and accumulation of fluid inthe lungs. Children may be more susceptible than adults to the respiratory effects of formaldehyde. Even fairly low concentrations of formaldehyde can produce rapid onset of nose and throat irritation,causing cough, chest pain, shortness of breath, and wheezing. Higher exposures can cause significant inflammation of the lower respiratory tract, resulting in swelling of the throat,inflammation of the windpipe and bronchi, narrowing of the bronchi, inflammation of the lungs,and accumulation of fluid in the lungs (Medical Management Guidelines for Formaldehyde,Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, CAS#: 50-00-0, updated 11/02/06). CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 1343 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS).Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of over 100 different chemicals that are formed during the incompleteburning of coal, oil and gas, garbage, or other organic substances and found in coal tar, crudeoil, creosote, and roofing tar. The Department of Health and Human Services has determined that some PAHs may reasonably be expected to cause cancer. Some people who have breathed or touched mixtures of PAHs and other chemicals for long periods of time havedeveloped cancer. Certain PAHs have caused cancer in laboratory animals when they breathed air containing them (lung cancer), ingested them in food (stomach cancer) or had them applied to their skin (skin cancer). PAHs are found in air attached to dust particles, and can enter water throughdischarges can enter water from industrial and wastewater treatment plants where they can move through soil to contaminate groundwater. The PAH contents of plants and animals may bemuch higher than PAH contents of soil or water in which they live (ToxFAQs for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,September 1996). Cadmium.Cadmium is an element that occurs naturally in the earth's crust. Pure cadmium is a soft, silver-white metal that attaches to small particles in the air. People who live near hazardous waste sites or factories that release cadmium into the air have the potential for exposure to cadmium in air. Breathing air with very high levels of cadmium can severely damage the lungs and may causedeath. Breathing air with lower levels of cadmium over long periods of time (for years) mayresult kidney disease, lung damage and fragile bones. Data on human exposure to cadmium islimited, but studies showthat rats that breathed in cadmium developed lung cancer, liverdamage and changes in the immune system. Female rats and mice that breathed high levels ofcadmium had fewer litters, babies with more birth defects than usual, reduced body weight,babies born with behavioral problems and learning disabilities. As a conservative approach, and based on the limited human data and the studies in rats, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined thatcadmium and cadmium compounds may reasonably be anticipated to be carcinogens. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that cadmium is carcinogenic to humans. The EPA has determined that cadmium is a probable humancarcinogen by inhalation (Public Health Statement for Cadmium, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, July, 1999, CAS # 1306-19-0). Arsenic.Arsenic occurs naturally in soil and minerals and it therefore may enter the air, water, and land from wind-blown dust and may get into water from runoff and leaching. Arsenic released from power plants and other combustion processes is usually attached to very small dust particles. These dust particles settle to the ground or are washed out of the air by rain.Arsenic attached to dust may stay in the air for many days and travel long distances. Ultimately, most arsenic ends up in the soil or sediment. Children may also be exposed to arsenic by eating dirt, skin contact with soil or water that contains arsenic, or through inhalation. If you breathe airthat contains arsenic dust, particles of arsenic-contaminated dust may settle onto the lining of the lungs. Inorganic arsenic is usually found in the environment combined with other elements such asoxygen, chlorine, and sulfur. Arsenic combined with carbon and hydrogen is referred to asorganic arsenic. Long-term oral exposure to inorganic arsenic can results in a pattern of skinchanges called "corns" or "warts" on the palms, soles, and torso that may develop into skincancer. Swallowing arsenic has also been reported to increase the risk of cancer in the liver,bladder, kidneys, prostate, and lungs. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)has determined that inorganic arsenic is known to cause cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that inorganic arsenic is carcinogenic to humans. The EPA also has classified inorganic arsenic as a known human carcinogen. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 135 Breathing high levels of inorganic arsenic will result in a sore throat, irritated lungs and the potential to develop lung cancer. This has been seen mostly in workers exposed to arsenic at smelters, mines, and chemical factories, but also in residents living near smelters and chemicalfactories. People who live near waste sites with arsenic may have an increased risk of lungcancer as well. High doses of an organic arsenic compound may result in nerve injury, stomachirritation or other effects. All health effects observed in adults are of potential concern in children. Children may be more susceptible to health effects from inorganic arsenic than adults, and there is evidence thatsuggests that long-term exposure to arsenic in children may result in lower IQ scores (PublicHealth Statement for Arsenic, Draft for Public Comment,Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, September 2005, CAS#: 7440-38-2). CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 115 http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20101007/COMMUNITY/101009520?template=printart This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears above any article. Order a reprint of this article now. Asphalt plant would expose children to toxins By CATHERINE CANTO Published: Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 3:00 a.m. For children, the consequences of exposure to toxins are serious and life-long. Recent medical studies show toxins make children more prone to asthma, allergies, cancer, heart disease and developmental delays. Petaluma children are already highly exposed to toxins with many of our schools and parks near freeways. In Sonoma County, one in five children ages 5 to 17 have asthma. The average cost of a childhood asthma hospitalization in Sonoma County is $6,148, and our schools lose money each day a child is absent from school. Dutra’s asphalt plant will expose 4,560 students, who attend school within two miles of the proposed plant, to toxins. Can we trust Dutra Materials — a corporation with a history of environmental mistakes, fines and bankruptcy — to do what is necessary to keep our children safe and healthy? The Community Health Forum, sponsored by the Petaluma Health Care District on Sept. 30, was eye-opening in the conflict over the proposed Dutra asphalt plant. For the first time in the history of this conflict, medical experts had a chance to inform the public of the potential health impacts of the proposed project. With the health care district providing a neutral platform, both the Dutra Corporation and community groups opposed to the project were allowed to invite speakers to address the health concerns of the public. The most compelling segment was presented by a Marin pediatrician and UCSF Medical Center pediatric environmental health specialist, Dr. Alice Brock-Utne. Dr. Brock-Utne discussed the cutting-edge scientific research that explains how and why children and fetuses are disproportionately susceptible to health problems caused by exposure to airborne toxins. She stated that children are more active, have greater air intake per minute and poorer toxin-clearing capability than adults. She then discussed how particulate matter (referred to as either PM 10 or PM 2.5, depending on size) works its way into the bodies of children to disrupt normal development. Furthermore, toxic chemicals, such as carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), can attach to the particulate matter and enter the body. The particulate matter and accompanying toxins weaken the structure and function of childrens’ developing lungs and weaken the lungs’ ability to self-repair. Further, because these materials penetrate to the cellular level, they also disrupt the normal development of the immune system. They change the way children’s DNA is read, making children more prone to asthma and allergies. http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20101007/COMMUNITY/101009520?template=printart (1 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:19:34 PM] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 137 http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20101007/COMMUNITY/101009520?template=printart One major source of PM 2.5 is diesel emissions from trucks. Recently updated regulations require PM 2.5 be assessed for industrial projects. Unfortunately, despite public outcry, to date both Dutra and Sonoma County have refused to assess the asphalt plant project for PM 2.5 and its health and environmental impacts, particularly for children, infants and fetuses. Dutra invited Dr. David Weill, a pulmonary critical care specialist from Stanford University, to present at the forum. Dr. Weill said he had reviewed the health risk assessments prepared by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and by Environ Corporation, Dutra’s hired consultants. He said that based on those documents, he saw no evidence of health risks from the project. He also said pollution does not cause any health risks, which goes against current medical knowledge. He did not address the fact that PM 2.5 was not included in BAAQMD’s report. Dr. Brock-Utne stated the health-risk assessments done do not include the type of developmental immunotoxins she discussed. Consequently, she noted, protecting children from environmental threats requires a preventive, collaborative effort of government, science, clinician, community and family. It’s our duty to provide our children with schools and parks that are safe and healthy. The Board of Supervisors will be voting on this asphalt plant on Oct. 12. It is now up to us to contact the Board of Supervisors and let them know Dutra’s plan for an asphalt factory near Shollenberger Park, schools, offices, homes, visitors and wildlife is absolutely, “the wrong plant, in the wrong place.” Outtakes of the community health forum on the potential health impacts of the proposed Dutra asphalt plant will soon be posted on YouTube and the complete event will be broadcast soon on Petaluma Community Access. (Catherine Canto has a bachelor’s of science in nursing and has worked in many health-care settings. She is a Petaluma Parks, Music and Recreation commissioner, a Youth commissioner, and a board member for Moms for Clean Air.) Copyright © 2011 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only. http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20101007/COMMUNITY/101009520?template=printart (2 of 2) [8/4/2011 4:19:34 PM] CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 138 Indians Appeal Asphalt 'Permit clean alr advocates were dlsmayed but not surprised ldst month when the county alr pollullon conlrol dlslrlct gave Ils go-ahead lo a new asphalt plant Just north ofUklah. Twoappeals ofthe permll have been nied, however, and a healing date Is to be announced. Meanwhlle, new questlonsaroseoverw~o had the auuior- Ity to grant the project aland use pemlt. the Plnolevllle tribal. ,coUncll or the County of Mendoclno. On December 14, the MCAPCD Is- sued a permlt to Shamrock Materials for construction and operation oia 300-ton per hour asphalt plant located at Ross Mayfield Jr.'s Arrow Pavlng slte In the ~lnolevllle~anche~ajust no+ofUkIah. Mayfield holds usepemlts lor the proJect from both the County and the trlbal councll, whtle Shamrock Is apparently provldlng the fundhg. There is currently only one oker producer of asphalt in the couniy, and lhe Forsythe Creek project on Hlghway 101 has Just opened a tre- mendous new demand for the pmduct. Citlng health coricems over the.lm- pack that the plant would certainly have on rancheriaresldents, agroup ofnelgll- bors opposed to the project appealed Uie alr pollullon permlt. llie SlerraClub nled a separate appeal at the same tlme. The,, APCD is now consldertng when to hold a publlc heking on ihe appeals. The neighbors have organized them- selves as Unlted TYIbal Members and Non-TYlbal Residents of Plnolevllle. The core commltlee is made up of Margene McGee. A~ada Pacheco, and Nancy and Leona Wllllams, but the group probably also Includes at least twenty more who have expressed concerns about the plant slnce lasi .summer. At an tmotlonal publlc meetlng on the proJect in Novern- ber. lhe Unlted Mbal women asked counly air pollutlon conlrol omcer Cralg McMlllan, a doctor and dlrector ofpubllc heallhfor lhe County, todeny the permlt out ofconcern tor the health olrancherla resldents. McMlllan sald at U~at time that ltwas psslble, but not ltkely, that the dlstrlct would deny the permlt based slmply on health conslderatlons. He Issued the permlt last month wllh no mentlon of public health concerns. Air Rules are Inadequate: McMlllan, along with APCD Inspec- tor Phlllp Towle, has sald that curreat regulations oblige them to issue the air pollutlon pennlt because the proJect meets the requlrementsofalrquallty Ianr. Thls Is not surprising, because the cur- rent laws are not designed to keep clean alr In rural areas.clean, but only Lo pre- vent dirty alr In industrial areas from getllng dlrtier. n~ls is all about 'Prevention of Slg- nlncant Deterioration' regulations, or PSD for short. Current alr quallty law proJects a maxlmum level ofpermlsslble pollutlon (National Ambient Alr Quallty Standards) and seeks to prevent air pol- lution In local dlstricLs lrom exceedlng U~ese Ihlts. These NAAQS standards reflect the level of pollullon in industrial- Lzed areas when the laws were written. But now, most large clues exceed the standards. The law also sets mlnlmum thresholds, and dennes 'slgnllicant In- crease In pollutlon" as any change whlch is above the thresholds but below the maxlmums. In areas such as ours, where the udstlng alr pollullon Is below the federal standard. the dlnerence helween the current level and the lederal maxlrnum for each pollutant is called an Increment - It is clean alr that can legally be sacri- ficed to development. The pennlt issued by Dr. McMlllan shows that the plant would operate 11 hours per daylor about nlne monlhs of Ule year. ProJected alremlsslons from the plant Itsellare: 2.4 lb./hr. ofPMlO. 7.2 Ib./hr. ofNltrogen Oxldes. 17.71b./hr. of Sulfur Oxldes. 30.3 lb./hr. of Carbon Modoxide, and 7.7 lb./hr. of volatile nr- ganic compounds. Additional emlsslons of PMlO - tiny dust particles that lodge In the lungs - will result from tramc and wind erodon lromgravelplles, exceedlng plant emlsslons. Projected emlsslons are apparently taken from manufakturer.s data. The permit is conditioned on the appllcantpavlng tramcarea?iin,the exist- hg concrete and gravel yard, lnstdlng some sprinklers, and applying llgnln to exposed sol1 areas. The also sets a stack emls- dons llmltof0.4grains perdrycublc foot ofexhaust gas Lo be achleved by lnstalla- Uon and operatlon ofa 60,000 cublc-foot per mlnute baghouse as best avallable control technolow. The baehouse and - - the parts for lheasphalt plant arealready on the slle awaltine hwkuo. but there Is - no construction undeway at presstime. The stack emlsslons llmlt Is the federal standard lot new asphalt plants. The APCD consldered how the pro- posed plant would be vlewed under stale and federal alr qualltyrules. The dlstrlct decided that the project was not a maJor source, and that it would not emlt more CO. NOx. SOX. PMlO or VOC than the permitted federal threshold levels. The dlstrlct also sald that the plant's pro- jected emlsslons were less than U~ose < .~ projecl. RJ pholo. that would requlre a revfew of exlsting sources to see U federal amblenl air quallly standards are belng vlolated. Furlher, the dlstrlct sa~d that Ule project met a counly alr pollutlon rule that the pmJect will not cause a deterio- ratton Of exisung alr quaUty h excess of 50% of remalnlng avallable PSD lncre- CONTINUED, p. 6 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 139 6 The MEhrD0CIA'O COUMRY Pinoleville ~sbhalt Perm& CONT. from p.n 8 menu. That is, thc Shmck/A<ayfield pknt . will not uscup halrof thc rcmaimng clean au. so it can k builL -In granting thc permit, the dismct Mld .' that the &sting pvel and mncrctc pbnt on the site ga~~ntcd 90.7 lbs. of PMJO pcr day. Now, thcsttcurill kpavcd and oiled; prcsuma- bly cllmhatlng the cmlsions. And the new asphalt p+t slack would anlt 26.4 lb. of PMlO pcr day and that traffic, wind mrsiOn and dumpingwJd caux another 38.3 lb. of PMlO rn day even with the pa&nt and lignin.ihus thc district can show anct reduc- tion of 26 lb. ofPMlO per day. Based on this ~miccxd reduction of dust emissions. thed1st;fc;sdd the pmJccrd~d not . rtqrurc a dcwlm au qudry unpact analysis. I?IC district irlso &ui& theamlicant to perform source tcsu ~~~'PMIOEII~ S62 within sktydays ofstartup, and to mafy the district Standing Up for Health: Working against a tight deadline. a group of Native -cans livlng in the rancherla raised the required fcc ofS276 in order to lile thdr appeal to +e air pollution pcrmit just before Christmas. Their atromor. Loannc MoorcofWUu. sa!d the ap.d & based on the nd to ornet the hcalth oflocal awcns. esP&+ &dm and the elderly. 'We askcd thc district to rcvokc the per mit for lack of any monltoxing by the APCD irwU,' Mwrc told MCE. T:l. appli-: has Wy shown a disregard for acU-regulation ' by instk!ing thc kghouw on ti;.. ~ltc bcfore thc pamtt was granted. Wealso polntcd out that 5c pdt failed to support the claim of nct rcductionh source anissions. Favine isn't enough Andthcdisoict also failcdto m&idcr cumukth~ impact of hs sourcc togcthcnutth 'And tbc isinct also gave no mnsidcra- tion to the likdv in- of buck d~c at the site. Wc als~ qkstioned the allowance of 60 days of opaaton before requiring the source . . test.Thcdiztricthu not pmpcriyasscsacd the envwnmcntal pmbb Nacd by this pmj- cct.' shc added. MWE. wb is o-e a nw ~wPracti~inthc-~~wrkldgon&s- pm bmo. She um prnrlousiy ack wtth Wil- Ilu Cftizcm for a Silrc EMmnmcnt fn thclr sucrnsful Wage of the defeated biomass plant in that uwn- Use Permit Questioned: A rcc-nt development calls Into Question thc status of the u& pm~t for thcpmlect lart summa. Iheclcc~Tnbal Counsel ofthe PinolwIUe Indian Community grantcd bss Ma-vficld a use -1 for the asphalt plant hausc he is a low tnmmc Native AmerlEan. Mavfidd. who is half Chcmkcc. is invalved tn an'undlscloscd bustn- rrlati-iup with Shammck Materials which is based in Mann hunty. Mayficld and the mbal munc! pmudly paint to &IS pm~cct as an exampie of lndfan sovereignty. Mayficld now pays taxcs on the :~vcl and mnartc oocntion to the mbc. whlch is sarely m necd of funds to ~rry a;: lu acuV1t1u.Tne 'sxpavmcn~~ would incmc should theasphalt plant go on linc. and Map- field also oKcrs to--ploy Mbal members in the pmjcct. As part of the pcrmit thc aibal muncil wlll dclcgatc a reprcsatative to mod- tor air emissions at thc plant Thc United Tribal -Mcmbm, hm. ulticizc this use peet as a usurpation of pawcr by the uibal mundL Thcy ncva asked people in thc ranch- ff they wanted plant which urill jwwizc the hcalth of the children.' charges M&e;Sh< aiSO points out thatthc~balmundwllln~shutdomthc pi- even ffitviolatcs airstandads, hcausc rt is dcwndcnt on Mavfield's fax mvmcnts. visors that thc Counw in facthas iurisdiction ovu that pxt~cukr ;it=. IIW a&s imm a recent US suprune murt dectsion m the Ya- kima caw that county govcmments p& in c+es whcx uss wih thc boun&cs oi a rrscrvation have becn alienated to m-tnbd ownership, as in fhis casc. ?he County gave Mayfield a permit for the asphalt pbnt back m 19R7. . Thc tnbal mund and the County haw a donnantmun ~;lwd?spucngJunsdbc3onom the entire rancherk ln thlssutt the munry har stipulated that thc tribal mund can de- cide uses on its hd If li can mmc up with a mm~mhcnsivc olan. To answr &IS nd. thc bib& mund h& hid a mnsultant to draft a tcntaflve pian. due to k reled later this spring. But Mfficc says no one in the ranch- cMhas~r8~~nthi5knduwpkn'Howcan it rcprricnt what we want for the ranchma 11 wc dodt cven know what's in m' shc asks. But if thc county docs indd have Ie~al jurisdiction over the Sh?mmck/Mayficld six. opponents of the plant may take heart If the County supc~son would rcmnsidn the 1987 usc parnit. theymy decide to rrmkcft based on health considcrahons. This s=ms much more likcly than hop- that the tribal mund not to kt the plant be built. WHAT YOU OW W: I] Wr(x to the Mendodno County AJr PolluUon Appeals Bead asklnt that the Sbammck asphalt pian: tur poUutlon pcrm~: bc mkcd far health -sons. Counry Court- house. UW. CA 95482 2J Wntc to your County supervisorasklng that the munty rcmns~der and mkc the Mayfield use Wt lor Lh; asphalt plant at Rnoidc County Courthouse. Uloah. CI, 95482 3) Send a donahon to Unltcd Tnoal Mcmbcrs to mveradrmnis~hv~ and lcgalfccs in thc iasc Make :becks to ivicnc McGec. 680 Rnolde Dnvc. U!aah. CA95482. Mano thc ch&: Clean h. 4) For the date and place of the appal hcanng, s9 in touch vNh thc Madocma Enwonmcntal Ccntcr. 468- 1660. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 140 1 of 1 DOCUMENT News & Record (Greensboro, NC) January 24, 2004 Saturday GREENSBORO/HIGH POINT EDITION GROUP OPPOSES ASPHALT PLANT; THE PLANT WOULD BE ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM COLFAX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. BYLINE:BY JENNIFER FERNANDEZ Staff Writer SECTION:TRIAD; Pg. B1 LENGTH:643 words DATELINE:COLFAX A strong whiff of perfume is enough to set off Ashley Carter's asthma, which is so severe that she goes to Duke Children's Hospital to see a specialist and undergoes treatments at home twice a day. So Ashley's mother, Beth Carter, worries about what will happen to her 8-year-old if the smell of hot asphalt churning in a plant half a mile from Ashley's school comes wafting in. "No one would want a small child around that, whether they have a problem or not," said Carter, 35, an office manager for a small construction management firm. Carter is one of several Colfax Elementary School parents who are concerned that a proposed asphalt plant just off West Market Street might get approved by the Guilford County Planning Board. Parents and community members, who have formed "Neighbors For a Cleaner Colfax Tomorrow," will meet Tuesday at Shady Grove Wesleyan Church to prepare for the Feb. 11 planning board meeting. The board will consider at that meeting a proposal by Vecellio & Grogan, based in Beckley, W.Va., to build a $7 million asphalt plant on 17 acres next to Carolina Steel Corp. across from Colfax Elementary. Vecellio & Grogan officials could not be reached for comment. In the past, they have said the Colfax plant might one day produce enough asphalt to fill hundreds of dump trucks per day. They've also said there will be few emissions and that asphalt plants are much cleaner today than they used to be. Vecellio & Grogan runs five asphalt plants in Florida. Three of them are in Florida's Department of Environmental Protection Southeast Division, which has only one violation on record for the company, said division spokesman Willie Puz. In 2000, the company was fined for having too much sulfur in its fuel at its West Palm Beach plant, he said. The company has won several awards for its practices, including one from a Florida environmental group for its recycling efforts and several from an industry association. The Asphalt Education Partnership states on its Web site beyondRoads.com that there is "no scientific evidence that the very low levels of emissions from an asphalt facility pose health risks to humans." Page 1 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 141 The local health department and regional EPA office in Winston-Salem did not have information on health risks associated with asphalt plants. "I don't care what they say," said Bill Shular, whose home is 1,000 feet from the proposed plant. "The picture they print and what they talk about is not what it's going to be." Shular, who is part of an organized opposition to the plant, said he visited other asphalt plants in the area. He talked to several residents and said they had the same complaints: smoke, dust, fumes from the trucks, heavy traffic, road deterioration, and health problems, such as sinus conditions. Parents have told him they will leave if the Colfax plant is approved, Shular said. Colfax Elementary's PTA has been calling parents to advise them of the situation. "From what we've heard, we're going to smell this," said Courtney Spencer, 35, co-president of the PTA and the mother of a first-grader at the school. She also has a 4-year-old who will soon be attending Colfax. Spencer said she doesn't want her children exposed to the smells, dust and unseen pollutants of an asphalt plant. County planners have recommended the board reject the plant based on concerns over the proposed entrance, which would have heavy trucks traveling small side roads to access the plant. Spencer said that parents are optimistic because of the recommendation, but are nevertheless "afraid to take it for granted." That is why they are continuing to gather support against the plant. "I think there's a lot of concern that it might slip through if they come up with an alternate entrance," she said. Contact Jennifer Fernandez at 373-7064 or jfernandez@news-record.com LOAD-DATE:January 27, 2004 LANGUAGE:ENGLISH GRAPHIC:Map Graphic, TIM RICKARD; News & Record; PROPOSED ASPHALT PLANT Copyright 2004 News & Record (Greensboro, NC) Page 2 GROUP OPPOSES ASPHALT PLANT;THE PLANT WOULD BE ABOUT HALF A MILE FROM COLFAX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. News & Record (Greensboro, NC) January 24, 2004 Saturday GREENSBORO/HIGH POINT EDITION CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 142 ASPHALT PLANTS January 15, 2001 Mountain Air Action Project Asphalt Plant Campaign Report This report gives an update on BREDL's campaign to reduce toxic pollution from asphalt plants in western North Carolina. It includes information about six communities which oppose existing or proposed asphalt plants. After defeating an attempt by industry to eliminate North Carolina's regulations for toxic air pollution control in 1997, BREDL continued to organize communities with actual or proposed toxic air pollution industries and to oppose the deregulation of air pollution. Major accomplishments include: 1-North Carolina signed an agreement with Tennessee to protect air quality in the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Linville Gorge and other Class I wilderness areas. 2-North Carolina developed a new and better analysis of fugitive toxic air emissions 3-We forced North Carolina to expand the Toxic Air Pollutant program to all operating and proposed asphalt plants The path to clean air is includes program and policy changes at the state and national levels. But without an actual reduction of pollution in communities where industrial plants are located, we cannot claim success. BREDL community organizers spend 90% of their time working with groups of citizens, most of them new to the environmental movement. In 1997 BREDL organized local opposition to an asphalt plant proposal in an unzoned community in Watauga County. The permit was denied on the basis of public health protection, a first in North Carolina, and resulted in an eight month statewide moratorium on all new asphalt plant permits. An asphalt plant proposed for Flat Creek in an unzoned area of Buncombe County was also defeated in 1997. North Buncombe Association of Concerned Citizens and BREDL joined forces to uncover and publicize the track record of the asphalt company. The campaign raised serious doubts about the company's ability to operate a plant within state regulations and the proposal was dropped. In 1998 we organized four new groups in Polk, Rutherford, Macon, and Ashe counties in western North Carolina. These rural groups which have become BREDL chapters include Foothills Action Committee for the Environment (FACE), Rutherford Environmentalists Against Pollution (REAP), Neighbors Against the Cullasaja Asphalt Plant (NACAP), and Ashe Citizens Against Pollution (ACAP). BREDL staff services included campaign strategy sessions, technical assistance with permits, media training, assistance with fiscal management, and limitation of liability through joint incorporation. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 143 In 1998 our accomplishments included getting North Carolina to develop a new and better analysis of fugitive toxic air emissions and to expand the Toxic Air Pollutant program to all operating and proposed asphalt plants. In July 1998 BREDL challenged the state with a request for a ruling on toxic emissions from asphalt plants. In September BREDL staffer Lou Zeller presented new information about asphalt plant emissions to the state Environmental Management Commission. In 1999 the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League received the Governor's Conservation Achievement Award for Air Conservationist of the Year. In 1998 we began to do our own SCREEN3 computer modeling of stationary air pollution sources. This is the principle method used by the NC Division of Air Quality's permitting experts to estimate toxic air pollution emissions. We are expanding this capability to include ISCST3 and more advanced methods. We are compiling background data and computer models which will enable BREDL and our community groups to assess the effects of mobile and stationary air pollution sources on ground level ozone, acid rain, and toxic air pollution. With these tools at the disposal of community activists our campaigns will acquire a new technical sophistication and be better able to combat air pollution of all types. In 1999 we mounted three simultaneous asphalt plant permit challenges, all in the mountain region. Also, working with a national network of activists to oversee asphalt plant testing by the EPA, we monitored asphalt plant emissions tests in California and Massachusetts. These tests form the basis for EPA guidance for estimation of fugitive, or ground-level, emissions of volatile organic compounds and other asphalt plant toxins. In 2000 we experienced victories and setbacks. A third asphalt plant proposal was defeated in Watauga County. Citizens remain vigilant in Ashe County since the defeat of an asphalt plant proposal near Jefferson. Residents along the Cullasaja River won a stunning reversal of a judge's decision which upheld an asphalt plant permit, but the company has re-applied for a new permit. In 2001 we continue our drive for reduction of asphalt plant pollution. Recently, three asphalt plant operators have submitted requests for new pollution permits in western NC, and three new grassroots community organizations have been formed. We have active asphalt plant campaigns in five communities. Pineola In Avery County, Christmas Tree Capital of NC, citizens of Pineola tolerated asphalt plant pollution for years. Residents called us complaining of nausea and asthma associated with plant operation. After joining BREDL in early 1997, Pineola Concerned Citizens waged a campaign to stop the poisoning of their village. Our efforts were rewarded on July 6, 1998 when the Avery County Commission voted unanimously for the asphalt plant's immediate closure. But the NC Division of Air Quality has not responded to the county's requests. However, Pineola Concerned Citizens made significant progress in the campaign to build public opposition to Maymead Materials' asphalt plant pollution in Pineola. In 1998 the plant operated at less than 10% of permitted annual capacity, a reduction of one-third from the previous year. Residents attribute this drop to negative publicity about the plant and heightened environmental CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 144 concerns at the county level. In 1999 Maymead's permit expired, requiring the company to submit a permit application for continued operations. BREDL and Pineola Concerned Citizens presented a report on the new draft permit to the Avery County Commission on April 5th. The report contained an independent SCREEN3 computer model run by BREDL. Our results indicated the plant would not be in compliance with state regulations if permitted at the present location on Highway 181. At issue were benzene and formaldehyde emissions, pollution loopholes, and public health impacts. In response to Pineola Concerned Citizens' request, the Avery County Commission passed a resolution citing our findings and opposing the new permit. At the April 12th public hearing in Newland everyone but Maymead's attorney testified against the permit. We informed officials of our findings and proved that the map used by the state indicated a false location for the plant. Pineola citizens told the state officials of odor problems and asthma which coincide with plant operations and the negative impact on water quality in the Pineola Bog and the nearby Linville River. Dale Thompson lives next to the Maymead plant and is a member of PCC. He testified about the effects of the asphalt plant on the nearby church cemetery saying, "Dead people can't be bothered by pollution, but it even turns the gravestones black." Donna Autrey said, "Little people are not listened to, but big industry and DOT are." On June 10, 1999 the Division of Air Quality approved the permit but recommended that Maymead Materials work with Avery County officials to find a more suitable location for the Pineola plant. Our plans are to work with the Pineola Concerned Citizens and to use the Pineola example in an appeal to EPA regarding the misuse of the synthetic minor rule under Title V of the Clean Air Act. In 2000 residents of Pineola continued the campaign by assisting other communities to learn about asphalt plant pollution impacts. Pineola Concerned Citizens are compiling data which document the loss of property values near the plant. Completion of this study in 2001 will complement statements at public hearings which revealed a $400,000 loss in assessed valuation by the Avery County Board of Adjustment. Property value losses were greater at sites closer to the operating asphalt plant in Pineola. UPDATE: March 8, 2002: The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense released a study showing the adverse impacts on property values and quality of life around an asphalt plant in Pineola, North Carolina. Boone In 1997 our successful campaign against an asphalt plant on Roby Green Road, an unzoned residential area outside of Boone, NC resulted in a de facto statewide moratorium on new asphalt plant permits. But the asphalt and highway industries used their considerable clout in Raleigh and in March 1998 the moratorium was lifted. Soon after, the asphalt company re-applied for an identical permit on the same site. Citizens Against Pollution (CAP), which led the victorious 1997 campaign against Maymead Materials, again rallied people and other resources. Monthly events kept the issue in the public CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 145 eye and meetings with state officials pressed them to justify the lifting of the moratorium. For example, CAP held a Clean Air Walk in downtown Boone in May 1998. In June, public hearings in Boone were packed with citizens demanding extra-territorial zoning of the proposed plant site which lies outside the city limits. In July 1998 BREDL challenged the state with a request for a ruling on toxic emissions from asphalt plants. Citizens pushed for New River to be named the premier American Heritage River, and President Clinton made the designation in person in July. On August 8 Dr. Ravindra Nadkarni, author of two parts of the national Clean Air Act, testified against the air permit at the NC DAQ public hearing in Boone. In September BREDL staffer Lou Zeller presented new information about asphalt plant emissions to the state Environmental Management Commission. Ultimately, the state issued a permit which required a year of meteorological studies before the plant could open. CAP prompted the Town of Boone to invoke its extra territorial jurisdiction and the site is now zoned to prohibit heavy industry. Two years of grassroots organizing by Citizens Against Pollution (CAP) and BREDL prevented an asphalt plant in an unzoned community in Watauga County, on the banks of the New River. The detailed study of weather conditions at the proposed plant site may be the final battle for CAP, or it may spark the beginning of new smokestacks across western NC. Our concerns are that the study, if done poorly, would form the basis for DAQ's approval of new and larger air pollution sources in the mountains. In April 1999 our staff and volunteers prompted DAQ to produce a written protocol for the meteorological study. In May of that year the Director of DAQ, responding to our questions, said the study would not address the duration of air inversions. This was a change from DAQ's previous statements. These data are essential for a comprehensive study of unique mountain air pollution characteristics. The shortcomings of the study are that the methodology and equipment will detail only temperature, wind direction and velocity, and relative humidity. And the study does not address air inversions, fogs and other observable events, and pollution trapping. In fact, the study does nothing to address the issues of concern in the state's record of decision about the plant. We suspect that the study is designed to provide data for a new air toxins model which will allow far more pollution without taking into account the special conditions of mountain valleys. Meteorological data collection was completed in 2000. Jefferson In October we began working with citizens in Ashe County who were concerned about a proposal for a new asphalt plant near Jefferson, NC. Organizing proceeded quickly and on November 18, 1998 Ashe County Board of Commissioners approved an Ordinance to Place a Moratorium on the Construction and Erection of Asphalt Plants in Ashe County. Ashe Citizens Against Pollution (ACAP), with assistance from BREDL staff, sponsored radio ads, mailed out newsletters, posted yard signs, published newspaper display ads, and generated many news stories in local newspapers, all in a campaign to prevent Tri-County Paving, Inc. from building an asphalt plant at the foot of Mount Jefferson State Park and 6/10 mile from the county high CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 146 school. In January 1999 NC DAQ issued a draft air pollution permit for the proposed plant with a production total of 450,000 tons of asphalt per year. But no plant was ever constructed. During the intervening months BREDL and ACAP members documented the blasting and earth-moving done by the owners at the proposed site. This activity altered the topography and invalidated the computer modeling data submitted to DAQ by Tri-County Paving. We brought this to the attention of state officials who delayed the public hearing and required Tri-County Paving to submit corrected information. We also documented illegal dumping by Tri-County which prompted a notice of violation from the Solid Waste Section of DENR. Hundreds of people attended the public hearing at the Ashe County courthouse on March 22, 1999. Thirty-eight people spoke in opposition to the plant. Only one spoke in favor: the attorney for Tri-County Paving. Dr. Bill Horn, a pediatrician, noted the asphalt plant's proximity to the high school and said, "There is no justification for putting polluting industries near places where children are playing." Eileen Hartzog presented a petition with 100 student signatures opposing the plant. Kim Faw, whose home is across the road from the proposed plant, addressed the loophole in the state law for toxic pollution saying, "Count all the pollution!" On May 10 DAQ issued a final permit for a reduced output of 204,000 tons per year. On June 2, 1999 ACAP and BREDL filed a legal challenge against the permit. It stated that DAQ failed to consider on-site meteorological conditions at a mountain site, used erroneous data about the plant, and failed to adequately consider impacts on the high school and the state park. In July 1999 Tri-County Paving sued Ashe County over the imposition of the moratorium. ACAP and BREDL attempted to intervene on the side of the county, but the judge refused our request. We maintained close contact with county attorney and filed an amicus curiae, friend of the court, brief. A few months later, the state air pollution permit was rendered useless. On November 4, 1999, near the end of the one year moratorium, the county passed a Polluting Industries Development Ordinance which applied to "all areas of unincorporated Ashe County." The ordinance established county permit requirements and fees for "any polluting industry determined to be so" in unzoned, unincorporated areas outside of town limits. The ordinance names specific industries: mines, quarries, and asphalt plants. It prohibits asphalt plants within a thousand feet of residential and commercial buildings, and within a quarter-mile of schools, day care centers, churches, hospitals, or nursing homes. In 2001 ACAP continues to watchdog the situation and remains a chapter of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. Members attend county meetings and spread their anti-pollution message whenever possible. Beginning in 2000 they sponsored a superhero cartoon series in the local newspaper which pits Captain Acap against his nemesis, Joe Polluta. Tune in next week for the continuing adventures.... Cullasaja On October 14, 1998 the NC Division of Air Quality issued an air pollution permit to Rhodes CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 147 Brothers Paving in Macon County, NC. The permit allowed production of 180 tons/hour and 100,000 tons/year. Three weeks later BREDL community organizers attended the first community meeting called by residents of the Bethel community in a small church on the Cullasaja River. The state misjudged the level of interest in this rural mountain community and neither notified the people nor held a public hearing. Citizens formed Neighbors Against the Cullasaja Asphalt Plant (NACAP), a chapter of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. NACAP and BREDL filed suit on December 14, 1998 against the permit issued by the DAQ. Rhodes Brothers Paving, Inc. installed asphalt equipment on property next to the pristine Cullasaja River near Franklin. We challenged the permit on the basis of public health protection in a mountain valley and the failures of public notice and opportunity for public hearing. We later learned that the permit was issued over objections of regional DAQ staff in Asheville. On May 4, 1999 the asphalt plant commenced operations. Residents were immediately driven from their homes by the smoke and stench. One 90 year old woman confronted the asphalt plant operator on his property and said she would not leave unless the plant shut down. The Secretary of DENR ordered the plant to close and called for an investigation. On May 26th the NC Division of Epidemiology sent Dr. Luanne Williams to meet with the residents and visit the plant site. Residents who attended the meeting were appalled when she said that, based on the data provided to the state by the asphalt company, the emissions were within safe limits. On September 21, 1999 at the contested case hearing, Administrative Law Judge Beecher Gray ruled that the state acted properly in issuing an air pollution permit to Rhodes Brothers Paving. Dr. Ravindra Nadkarni, a national expert on asphalt plant pollution, testified on behalf of the citizens' group. He raised many technical issues which showed that North Carolina's asphalt plant permits cannot ensure public health protection as required by law. For example, the state uses the same computer model to predict air pollution levels from both the smokestack and truck loading operations. Dr. Nadkarni said, "The state's model is a quick and dirty approach to pollution prediction, but it is inappropriate for ground-level conditions." Macon county resident Jerry Starr, testified about the effects of the Rhodes Brothers Paving plant near his home. He said, "Nothing could have prepared us for the horrors of that plant; we cannot be outside when it operates, we are prisoners." Despite the loss, NACAP and BREDL continued the campaign. Lou Zeller, who testified on behalf of BREDL, said after the hearing, "Someone must listen to the people who are being poisoned by toxic pollution. We appeal to the EMC and Governor Hunt to rein in a state agency which is out of control." The next step was a hearing of the issue before the NC Environmental Management Commission. On March 9, 2000 the NC EMC voted unanimously to overturn Judge Gray's decision and revoked the Rhodes Brothers permit. The EMC based the decision on the state's failure to hold a public hearing and the failure to notify the Macon County Board of Commissioners. The EMC's final decision was issued May 29 but on May 30 Rhodes Brothers filed for a temporary restraining order against the EMC, allowing the company to continue operations. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 148 In April 2000 Rhodes Brothers Paving, assisted by Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, its Raleigh law firm, submitted a new application for the plant it had operated since May 1999. On May 30, 2000 the DAQ held a public hearing in Franklin which was attended by 300 people; the majority of speakers and 57 of 68 written comments opposed the new permit. Also, the US EPA sent a letter to the Director of NC DAQ which outlined five problems with the Rhodes Brothers permit, signaling a new level of federal scrutiny of North Carolina's permitting process. During this time there were numerous complaints of noise and odor from residents near the plant and a considerable number of recurring and uncorrected violations of permit conditions. On August 8, 2000 the DAQ issued an air pollution permit which was virtually identical to the first. NACAP and BREDL have filed a petition for a contested case against this permit, too. The conditions which made the plant intolerable to the people of the Cullasaja are unchanged by legal maneuvering and bureaucratic manipulation. In 2001 BREDL and NACAP will continue this campaign because, as Martin Luther King Jr. said, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice." UPDATE: March 8, 2002: The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League Bethel-Cullasaja community health survey report. The Bethel-Cullasaja community is the site of an asphalt plant permitted to produce 180 tons/hour and 100,000 tons/year of paving asphalt. White Oak Creek In December 1997 Polk County adopted an ordinance regulating asphalt plants and five other polluting industries. In 1998 D&S Asphalt Materials submitted an application to build an asphalt plant on White Oak Creek near Tryon. D&S planned to bring in a plant manufactured in 1965 which could emit double the visible pollution of modern plants. On July 6, 1998 BREDL organizers attended the first meeting of local residents opposed to the company's plans. Together we outlined a plan of action which included public meetings, letters and ads in local newspapers, and requests for protection by the county government. At the request of Foothills Action Committee for the Environment, Polk County strengthened the polluting industries ordinance in August. On November 16, 1998 North Carolina DAQ held a public hearing in Polk County High School attended by hundreds of citizens, the majority opposing the pollution permit. This region of Polk County is in the heart of the Isothermal Belt and standard computer models do not account for air pollution impacts in this mountain region. We submitted these data to the state. But in January the DAQ approved the permit. Foothills Action Committee for the Environment and BREDL opposed the permit granted and filed against it on February 12, 1999. Our challenge was based on the state's failure to protect public health. Also, FACE is challenging the county's lack of enforcement of its moratorium on new asphalt plants and other polluting industries and the issuance of a building permit to D&S in the flood plain of White Oak Creek. On September 21, 1999 the Administrative Law Judge heard the combined cases for White Oak CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 149 Creek and Cullasaja. This was an example of being right on the issues and losing the decision. Those who attended agreed that our attorney, John Runkle, and our witnesses, technical expert Dr. Nadkarni and the citizens from NACAP and FACE, did an excellent job of presenting our case. But the judge did not even take a day to review the information presented. He made a decision from the bench within ten minutes of the last witness' testimony. BREDL and Foothills Action Committee for the Environment continue to oppose this permit. On September 20, 2000 D&S Asphalt plant stack tests were reported in the Tryon Daily Bulletin. The tests were performed by a consultant hired by the asphalt company and measure how many pounds of particles are emitted from the smokestack per hour. D&S Operations Manager, Matt Davis, reportedly expressed relief at the result of these tests and said neighbors of the plant used "scare tactics." But the state requires asphalt plants to obtain permits to do tests because they emit thousands of pounds of toxic pollution. The legal limits for D&S Asphalt allow the plant to emit a total of 14,600 pounds of arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde, and other toxins every year. But D&S Asphalt has never been tested for emissions of toxic air pollutants. In fact, no asphalt plant in NC is tested for toxic emissions. These pollutants are estimated by computers and mathematical formulas rather than by actual stack testing, formulas which experts agree do not accurately predict the effect of toxic fugitive emissions. The question for is: do pollution limits protect public health and community values? To protect local community values, the state allows counties to determine where new industrial facilities shall be located. The county can determine whether an asphalt plant may operate within, say, a mile or a quarter-mile of an existing elementary school or residential neighborhood. But the state has been derelict in its obligation to protect public health from air pollution. The DAQ and other agencies issue new permits as if no other pollution exists, as if an asphalt plant was located on the Moon. But here on Earth, pollution from thousands of legally permitted smokestacks adds up to a general threat to human and environmental health. The toll in human misery is intolerable and it is up to all of us to put an end to business as usual. We are committed to a continuing campaign of clean air for children's health! CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 150 APAC: POLLUTING WITHOUT BOUNDARIES A Report On APAC-Atlantic Asphalt Plants in North Carolina September 23, 2005 by the BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 Phone (336) 982-2691 Fax (336) 982-2954 BREDL@skybest.com Esse quam videre CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 151 Overview APAC-Atlantic, Inc. operates thirteen asphalt plants in North Carolina. This report will cover violations of environmental laws and citizens’ complaints of the five APAC-Atlantic plants which are recorded in state files of the Asheville Regional Office of the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Air Quality. The five operating APAC-Atlantic asphalt plants in the Asheville Region are located in Rutherfordton in Rutherford County, Burnsville in Yancey County, Hendersonville in Henderson County, Morganton in Burke County and Penrose in Transylvania County. About a year ago APAC-Atlantic changed its corporate name, so most of the documents in this report will refer to APAC-Carolina; it is the same company. The APAC-Atlantic plants in this region range from small to large: Permitted Annual Location Production Limit (tons) Penrose 145,500 Henderson 400,000 Burnsville 730,000 Morganton 815,000 Rutherfordton 2,600,000 APAC is one of the nation’s largest transportation construction contractors. It possesses huge resources of financial capital, business acumen and engineering skill. But the company’s track record in western North Carolina reveals a corporate behemoth with its eye on the bottom line; it seems to care little for the health and well-being of the people who live nearest the asphalt factories it operates. Help in gathering the information for this report was provided by the able research team of the Rutherford County Citizens Against Pollution. Louis Zeller, Campaign Coordinator Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League September 23, 2005 APAC-Atlantic, Inc. Page 2 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 152 Penrose Transylvania County April 12, 1983 Complaint filed with NC DEM-ARO by local resident who reported that the operation of was much worse this year, citing excessive noise, dust, smoke, and a heavy odor. State inspector noted earlier malfunction which should have required the plant to shut-down during repair. Inspector also noted that noise and odor was consistent with those encountered at other asphalt plants. April 27, 1983 Resident complained of excessive dust and flames 30 feet high from burning tar. NC DEM inspector arrived May 4, asphalt plant dryer was not operating. May 19, 1983 Letter from resident to APAC plant operator complaining of “nauseating” exhaust gases which cause headaches. The resident had measured “loud, rumbling” noise levels of 83-86 decibels from his front porch, 240 feet from the plant. He added, “Even when the plant is not operating, the smell from asphalt lingers over our property and in our house.” May 26, 1983 NC DEM inspector finds plant to be in compliance with regulations. June 3, 1983 NC DEM investigator met with APAC to discuss complaints and possible actions to reduce noise, smoke and dust. Measures completed by July 14, 1983. September 16, 1983 NC DEM inspection done when plant not in operation. October 19, 1983 Complaint from resident to NC DEM prompts site visit same day. Visible emissions of 20-30% noted from pollution control device (baghouse filter), indicated non-compliance with state particulate regulations, and large hole in dryer emitting dust. April 26, 1984 NC DEM inspector noted 5-20% opacity from baghouse, several holes in plant emitting dust; observed “marginal” compliance with particulate regulations but no other violations. June 5, 1984 Resident called NC DEM complaining of dust worse than ever. No violations noted by NC DEM during inspection 9 days later. August 6, 1984 Resident again complained on excessive dust from asphalt plant. NC DEM inspected plant two days later, observed excessive dust, recommended repairs. Inspection in October noted no violations. May 31, 1985 Resident complained of excess dust from plant. NC DEM recommends that plant operator spread oil on roadways. Page 3 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 153 September 5, 1985 Following a series of complaints from local residents, NC DEM inspectors observe visible emissions of 15-60% opacity. Many holes found in pollution control device (baghouse). Problem corrected. April 10, 1986 Resident called to complain of dust and grit. NC DEM inspection the following day. August 4, 1986 A letter from a local resident to NC DEM pleading for help states, “More than three years have passed since we first contacted your department and there is still an excessive amount of dust ejected almost every day the plant is operating. This dust is ejected through the stack, through various leaks in the system and dust kicked up by the loader and truck traffic.” He enclosed a series of photographs depicting a “blow out” of pollutants from the asphalt plant. He also said that a “black, oily” substance coated plants along the branch and oil was in the creek. Finally, he noted that the adjacent rock quarry generated large amounts of dust which could be seen rising “above the rim of the quarry.” One week later the state inspector replied promising increased surveillance. August 10, 1987 NC DEM inspector reports plant in compliance with permit. August 17, 1988 NC DEM reports plant in compliance. May 1, 1989 In a letter of complaint to NC DEM a resident states that the pollution problems continue to get worse and provides recent photographs of dust clouds at the plant; he recites the history of failure by the state to properly regulate APAC’s Penrose asphalt plant, adding, “Do I have to call your department every time there is a hole in one of the dust collector bags or every time the sprinklers are not turned on?” He received no reply. August 22, 1989 NC DEM reports plant in compliance. October 20, 1989 Another letter from resident to NC DEM states problem still worse and encloses 18 more photographs taken June through October. September 6, 1990 NC DEM reports plant in compliance. August 12, 1991 Yet another letter from resident to NC DEM states problem continues at APAC’s asphalt plant. More photographs provided. March 10, 1992 NC DEM/DENR issues Notice of Violation to APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic) for “excessive fugitive particulate emissions coming from aggregate dryer and sifting screens at the plant.” Spring 2000 New drum mix plant installed Page 4 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 154 September 26, 2000 Resident calls NC DAQ complaining that the APAC Penrose plant is operating at night, producing more odor, more emissions and more noise. State inspectors arrived at the plant site on October 4 and noted no violations but recommended further surveillance to determine if an odor problem exists. November 16, 2000 Resident calls NC DAQ to complain about plant “spewing” pollution which hangs in the air and an “awful smell” which got worse after the new plant was installed. State inspectors arrived later that day after the plant had ceased operation and noted no problems. July 17 and 18, 2001 Resident phoned in to NC DAQ complaining of odors driving her out of her house. State inspectors arrived at plant to find faint odor on site only. August 6, 2001 Resident calls NC DAQ with odor complaint. Inspectors arrived next day, found no objectionable odor, gave resident odor log to record occurrences. September 30, 2002 NC DAQ inspection finds no problems. ________________________________________________________________________ APAC-Atlantic, Inc. Hendersonville Henderson County May 29, 1992 NC DEM issued a Notice of Violation for improper operation of the baghouse filter. May 18, 1995 NC DEM issued a Notice of Violation issued for improper operation of the baghouse filter and a fugitive dust problem. June 26, 1997 NC DAQ inspection notes visible dust emissions from baghouse filter. On July 1st NC DAQ Issued a Notice of Violation for improper operation of facility resulting in excess air pollution. October 9, 1997 NC DAQ inspectors again noted visible emissions from baghouse filters. A new Notice of Violation was issued on October 16th. On May 13, 1998 NC DAQ fines APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic) $1,433 for the October 16, 1997 violation. October 16, 2001 During stack testing, NC DAQ discovered “strong asphalt odors” in the trailer park across the road from the APAC plant. The inspectors notified the company. Page 5 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 155 December 5, 2001 NC DAQ inspection prompted by citizens complaints about another asphalt plant in the area finds “strong asphalt odors” in the in the Kingswood Hill Subdivision located near the APAC Hendersonville asphalt plant. March 25, 2002 DAQ Air Toxics Analytical Support Team performs tests of asphalt plant recycled fuel oil for chemical contamination. Hendersonville plant fails test; elevated halogen levels were found to be from 26% to 123% over maximum limit. March 27, 2002 NC DAQ issues Notice of Violation to APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic) for burning No. 4 recycled fuel oil with a total halogen concentration of 2230 parts per million (maximum in 1000 ppm). May 16, 2002 NC DAQ issued a Notification of Objectionable Odors and Requirement to Implement Maximum Feasible Controls. The notice was based on many citizens complaints which resulted in a determination by NC DAQ that there were “very strong odors beyond the APAC facility‘s boundaries.” APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic) objected but was required to submit compliance schedule by the Director of DAQ. April 7, 2003 NC DAQ issued Notice of Violation to APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic) failure to comply with arsenic emission limitations. The company was cited for failing to meet fuel oil requirements for recycled oil delivered between April and June 2002. The maximum arsenic level for fuel oil is 1 part per million, but APAC‘s Annual Report submitted to NC DAQ stated that No. 4 fuel oil delivered during that time had an arsenic level of “less than 1.94 ppm.” APAC then contracted with another laboratory, Precision Petroleum Labs in Houston, to re-test the fuel oil to show no excess arsenic. May 13, 2003 NC DAQ issued Recision of Notice of Violation based on re-testing done by APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic). July 21, 2004 NC DAQ issues Notice of Violation for failing to submit quarterly reports. APAC is required to report its monthly asphalt production, annual asphalt production, NOx, SO2 and CO emissions, and recycled fuel oil tests. APAC-Atlantic requested to remove the quarterly reporting requirement in its next permit for the Hendersonville plant. ________________________________________________________________________ APAC-Atlantic, Inc. Burnsville Yancey County Page 6 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 156 September 25, 1986 Resident complains of excessive dust, said, “he had never before seen an asphalt plant emit that much dust.” Pollution control device (baghouse filter) found to have two broken bags. October 8, 1986 Dust from asphalt plant causes complaints from residents who report the problem has persisted for several weeks. The plume was visible four miles away from asphalt plant, according to state official. June 10, 1987 Notice of Noncompliance issued by NC DEM for failing to control visible emissions (15A NCAC 2d .0521) exceeding 20% opacity. On June 19 APAC responds to DEM saying problems with baghouse filters fixed. June 11, 1987 Four residents call NC DEM to complain of excessive dust from asphalt plant. September 15, 1987 NC DEM inspection again cites failure of operator to control visible emissions, opacity as high as 65%. Photographs of smokestack taken by DEM. December 1, 1987 DEM issues Notice of Noncompliance for “large quantities” of emissions from several holes in plant observed by state inspectors on November 19th. February 5, 1988 APAC-Carolina (now APAC-Atlantic) fined $1,722.70 for failure to control emissions. Previous notices of noncompliance by company noted in legal documents: June 6, 1975 and April 19, 1977. August 22, 1996 NC DEM inspectors note visible emissions from baghouse filter and no method of dust control. Plant operator said bag filters had been changed two weeks earlier. Inspectors recommended Notice Of Violation be issued for excess particulate emissions (15A NCAC 2D .0506c). August 23, 1996 A different NC DEM inspector noted visible emissions in excess of 20% opacity, recommended Notice of Violation for improper operation of the plant. The NOV for the two occurrences was issued on April 30th. August 7, 1997 DEM issues two Notice of Violation for repeat offense of excess particulate emissions caused by lack of dust control (15A NCAC 2D .0506c) and fugitive emissions from the baghouse filter. June 3, 1999 NC DEM inspection notes excess visible emissions up to 40% opacity from the baghouse filter. A Notice of Violation was recommended. On June 8th DEM inspectors again visited the plant following reports of persistent excess emissions up to 30% opacity. On June 10, 1999 NC DEM issued a Notice of Violation for the two events. Page 7 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 157 September 2, 1999 NC DEM inspection notes plant operator exceeded maximum hourly production limit. Permit stipulated 150 tons/hour while operator was running at 165 tons/hour. Operator reported to have said he thought the plant could run as high as 180 tons per hour. No violation recommended by NC DEM because annual limit not exceeded and state air toxic limit had not been “triggered.” July 17, 2002 NC DEM inspector recommended Notice of Violation for failure to operate plant properly causing excess visible emissions of up to 50% opacity. APAC-Atlantic contested the NOV and no record of a violation being issued was in the file. September 17, 2003 Resident calls NC DAQ to complain about plant, said that cloths hung on line and outside furniture get covered with soot and black film and that they have to keep their windows closed. ________________________________________________________________________ APAC-Atlantic, Inc. Morganton Burke County April 14, 1992 Visible emission of 30-40%, violation for failure to effectively maintain pollution control equipment (baghouse filter). June 20, 1996 Warning letter for visible emission of 40-50%, violation of (15A NCAC 2D .0521). APAC operated two units at this site, and older batch mix plant and a newer drum mix plant. The violation occurred at the newer plant which was using an “anti-strip” additive made of animal fat by products. The anti-strip was required by NC DOT. June 26, 1996 Visible emissions of 40-50% again noted by NC DENR inspectors, again from NC DOT required additive. July 22, 1999 At this inspection NC DENR noted that the offending plant had been relocated to Mecklenburg County. ________________________________________________________________________ APAC-Atlantic, Inc. Rutherfordton Rutherford County Page 8 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 158 April 23, 2003 Odor complaint phoned to ARO-DENR by man living about one mile from the Rutherfordton plant. Resident said, “the odor bad, burning eyeseven inside house.” May 14, 2003 NC DENR Inspector issued NOV for violation of (General Condition #6) excess dust emissions from pollution control device. Page 9 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 159 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way Printed from the Independent Weekly website: www.indyweek.com POSTED ON FEBRUARY 20, 2002: Paving the Way How behind-the-scenes lobbying allows big-money interests like the asphalt industry to steamroll citizens By Jennifer Strom Carolina Sunrock Corporation on Camden Avenue dumps a load. Alex Maness For six years, Doug Robins has paved driveways and parking lots with asphalt he buys from other suppliers. About a year ago, the owner of Asphalt Experts decided to open his own plant. But he couldn't find a place to build it, thanks to a law that puts 1,500 feet between the smoky blue plumes of asphalt plants and the places people live. So he did what other Durham business people do when they need help building things. He went to City Hall. Greg Payne, then the city's economic development director, and members of the city/county planning staff got together to work on Robins' problem. After studying their laws and their maps, the staffers suggested Robins request a change to the law to reduce the 1,500 feet to 600 feet. The plan seemed headed for success as it slid routinely through planning and zoning hearings last summer. It squeaked through Durham's one environmental review board, and the City Council planned to vote on it in September. But one citizen watchdog sounded an alarm after learning of the proposal by accident. Days before the vote, neighborhood activist and NAACP leader John Schelp roused enough outcry to convince the council to delay the decision. Since then, Schelp has mobilized a diverse coalition of neighborhood activists, civil rights advocates, students and environmentalists. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 160 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way The proposal would create 10 new sites for potential asphalt plants, which mix gravel, sand and rock with petroleum-based cement, emitting pollutants such as benzene and formaldehyde. Of those, eight are in East Durham, meaning less affluent, inner-city minority communities would bear the brunt of unsightly, odorous and potentially hazardous pollution from a smokestack industry feeding growth in the wealthy white suburbs. A public debate is now raging over whether it's a good idea to put asphalt plants within two football fields of houses. But until Schelp rallied an unexpected but efficient revolt, the industry's unimpeded progress toward its goal was business as usual in Durham's planning process, where business interests influence the decisions that shape the landscape and affect citizens' everyday lives. "Industry reps have insinuated themselves into every corner of policy-making, with a deleterious effect for citizens," says Lou Zeller, the research director and Clean Air Campaign organizer for the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. His group battles asphalt plants and other controversial industries all over the state. "If the law is inconvenient for the industry to do business, they change the law." Those who stand to profit from policy decisions have several tactical advantages that begin long before residents have a chance to speak at a public hearing. They originate on the ground floor of City Hall, where the city/county planning staff jokes congenially with developers who come in to study the wall maps and chat about their plans. They continue upstairs, in the economic development office, where the staff's mission includes helping local businesses grow. Developers and business owners pay consultants to spend hours lobbying and clearing the way for their plans--consultants who often have long-standing relationships with staffers. They provide reams of background information to the planning department, data that often becomes the basis for staff recommendations in their favor. On the other side, citizens with less technical knowledge and familiarity with the planning process rely on the public process to alert them to what's happening in their neighborhoods. In the asphalt case, the hearing notice was 10 words long, buried in a page-long, inch-wide classified ad, and no letters went out to neighborhood groups. And even when they do participate in the public process, citizens--and their elected leaders-- often find themselves at a disadvantage, says County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow. "We are not experts on these topics. But the industries come in with all this information and they can tell their side of the story really well," says Reckhow, who chairs the Joint City- County Planning Committee where the asphalt proposal first surfaced in March. A planner by CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 161 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way training, Reckhow calls the overall process "lopsided." City and county staffers are quick to say their job is to serve the entire public. Anyone can walk into the planning office, ask for a change to the zoning law and launch the same approval process the asphalt industry is now pursuing. Interim Planning Director Dick Hails remembers an example from the 1980s, when a group of neighborhood leaders sought to change the zoning of adjacent properties to preserve open space near their homes. But most of the time, few people without a financial stake work the system. "The person that's going to be the most aggressive, and is more likely to spend the time in the planning office pushing projects, are the people who are proposing development," says Mayor Bill Bell. "And they have the time to do it, as opposed to John Q." In the asphalt case, the financial stakes are high: the N.C. Department of Transportation awarded $1.2 billion in state road contracts last year alone. David Rifenburg, of Rifenburg Construction, who eventually joined Robins' effort to change the law so he, too, could build a Durham asphalt plant, has won bids for major road projects across the state. Rifenburg built the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in Durham, a $7.6 million project, and two years ago resurfaced the city's roads with 22,000 tons of asphalt supplied by Carolina Sunrock Corporation. Carolina Sunrock, one of the two existing asphalt plants in Durham, just won a bid to provide asphalt to the city this year, a $147,028 contract. The Carolina Asphalt Pavement Association (CAPA), the industry lobby in Raleigh, estimates that public road contracts make up only about half the asphalt market. Private projects such as shopping malls and housing developments make up the other half. Rifenburg's private clients include Duke University (football stadium improvements and hospital complex) and Beechwood subdivision in Chapel Hill. Like other developers with profits at stake, both asphalt companies hired consultants to help work the deal. Asphalt Experts hired Durham attorney Will Anderson, and Rifenburg hired local land planner George Stanziale. Stanziale's friendly relationship with the Durham city/ county planning staff dates back to 1984, when he successfully advocated for controversial rezonings that led to the development of tony Treyburn. "From my point of view, they always try to be helpful," Stanziale says of the planning staff. "Their job is to protect and legislate the [zoning] ordinance. But when someone wants to get something done on a piece of property, and it doesn't meet the ordinance or a particular plan, say, a small-area plan, they're going to always work with us to see how we can get it done." CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 162 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way Stanziale does frequent business with the planning department, wearing several hats on behalf of his clients and his firm, Haden-Stanziale. He represented developers of car dealerships as part of the controversial Streets at Southpoint mall. He co-authored the Downtown Master Plan and is often tapped to serve on advisory committees, such as a 1998 group that recommended changes to Durham's natural resources protections. And he profits from city business, winning publicly funded contracts such as the $78,000 job designing West Chapel Hill Street Park in 2000. He is currently consulting on a rewrite of the city's development ordinance. Stanziale has never lost a Durham rezoning case. He says that's partly because he chooses his projects carefully but also because he has "great relationships" with the planning staff and involves them early in his plans. Those relationships are one factor that contribute to citizens feeling disenfranchised by the planning system, says one critic. "They've been doing this so long, some of them don't see how they bend over backwards for the developers. Then they don't understand why people like me think this is outrageous," says Steve Bocckino, a citizen activist in southwest Durham who got involved in politics when he led his neighborhood's battle against the Streets at Southpoint mall at Fayetteville Road and Interstate 40. Bocckino now serves on the planning commission, where he is frequently outraged by staff recommendations that side with developers, often based on what he calls "tortured logic." "They see the developers all the time and the developers are their friends. And they see residents as contentious naysayers." But while the planning staff plotted to help Doug Robins and David Rifenburg move asphalt plants closer to homes, there weren't any naysayers to contend with, because no one knew about the plan as it gathered steam behind the scenes. After cooperating with the planning department to develop language that was acceptable to both the staff and the industry, Stanziale and Anderson took their proposal to the planning committee for review in April. Zoning text amendments affect property across the county, rather than altering the rules for one particular piece of land the way a rezoning does. Text amendments also differ from rezonings in another crucial way: They require very little public notice. If a resident wants to change a house into an office, the city/county planning department sends a letter to nearby neighbors, with details of the request, an explanatory map, contact numbers for questions and dates and places of public hearings. But if the asphalt industry--or anyone else--wants to amend the law, the government puts an CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 163 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way advertisement in the local newspaper, back in the classified section, lumped in with a long list of other issues described in technical language. In presenting the proposal to the planning committee, the industry reps argued several key reasons for the change: The 1,500-foot setback rendered it impossible to build a new plant; changes in asphalt technology and "tougher EPA air quality standards" have cut down dust and noise affecting surrounding properties; and "there is a need for more asphalt plants in Durham to meet local needs." The planning staff backed them up, recommending approval based on the applicants' arguments and a few of their own. One point staffers cited was that the 1,500-foot setback had arisen out of a 1980s rewrite of zoning laws in the wake of a chemical explosion and a chemical fire in East Durham. During the revisions, asphalt plants were lumped into the same category as hazardous materials and explosives. "We looked at the actual impacts, and reported to the commission that asphalt plants fall somewhere between concrete plants and hazardous waste," says Hails. Concrete plants require only 100 feet of buffer space, while hazardous waste facilities require the full 1,500 feet. The planning staff also mentioned that Raleigh, Greensboro and Charlotte do not require any distance between asphalt plants and homes, a point that struck Lou Zeller of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League as ironic. "If Durham is even considering changing their setbacks, that's just incredible to me," Zeller says. "They would be undoing a good measure that protects public health in order to 'dumb- down' to what other communities have." The citizen coalition has since pointed out several examples of other cities, including Boston, that are expanding the buffers for asphalt plants based on environmental and health concerns. Another reason the staff cited in its recommendation was Durham's growth, saying "major road improvements and development projects maintain a high demand, with much asphalt being trucked in." "The rule of thumb is, if we are demanding it, we should take some responsibility for providing it," says Hails. "If there's a demand for something in the community, then you look at whether there's an appropriate site." The planning committee recommended approval, but also asked the Environmental Affairs Board to review the plan before it went any further. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 164 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way The EAB, a joint city-county advisory panel, is made up of local residents with professional credentials in a variety of fields. Elected officials created the board a decade ago to provide them with expertise when faced with decisions just like this one. "The EAB is there because [Durham County Commissioner] Becky Heron thought if we're giving the Chamber of Commerce money, we should do something to balance the other side," says Bocckino. "It's sort of the environmental chamber of commerce." The 11-member board has specific slots for individual disciplines such as solid waste, water quality, air quality and public health, with the city and county each appointing five members and one seat for a representative of the Soil and Water Conservation District Board. The EAB discussed the asphalt measure several times, eventually voting 4-3 to approve it with some changes. The board recommended expanding the setback from 600 feet to 750 feet, and requiring a solid 8-foot perimeter wall. An eighth member who had to leave the meeting early has indicated he would have voted against the plan, meaning it narrowly missed a 4-4 tie. One of the points that swayed the supporters was the staff's argument that Durham's setback was so much larger than other North Carolina cities, says one EAB member, who has since been chagrined to hear--via the citizen effort-- that buffers in other states are much larger, and in some cases, expanding. One of the three no votes was member Marian Johnson-Thompson, who holds the EAB's public health seat. "It's a situation--again--where money and big business come in and, I shouldn't say have no regard for poor people, but they're not as sensitive as they should be," says Johnson-Thompson, whose profession is studying health disparities among different ethnicities. "As a member of the board, I was embarrassed about how this vote went down." The EAB discussions focused primarily on noise and dust, despite Johnson-Thompson's concerns that the health and quality of life for Durham's less affluent communities of color were the real target. The industry reps produced a voluminous stack of supporting paperwork, including a report arguing that asphalt plant emissions were no more dangerous than those of an average bakery. "We did a lot of homework for them," says Stanziale. "We felt like we answered all of their questions." With approval from the planning committee and the EAB, the proposal went next to a public CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 165 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way hearing at the zoning committee. John Schelp was sitting in the City Council chambers that night, waiting for his turn to speak. As the president of the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association, Schelp was there to urge the zoning committee to require more open space in "mixed-use" developments. When the asphalt industry representatives stepped forward, Schelp listened in disbelief as they outlined their proposal. The industry reps repeated their arguments: the lack of eligible land under the current zoning law and the growing market demand for asphalt in Durham. They said recent technological advancements reduce the environmental impact and health hazards. Missing from the discussion, Schelp says, was any recognition that the residents most likely to be subjected to new asphalt plants within 600 feet of their houses were low-income minorities. "I thought to myself, we can debate health effects all night, but the asphalt industry says they are only interested in the sites in East Durham," says Schelp. "There's no gray area there." It was clear to him the proposal had coasted pretty far toward City Council approval with zero public debate, thanks in part to a 10-word-long public hearing notice "the size of a blade of grass." "The asphalt industry had eight months to whisper 'facts' into the ears of officials while the neighborhoods sat in the dark," Schelp says. Shocked by the environmental justice issue going unchallenged, and the one-sided nature of the discussion, Schelp began collecting a citizen coalition to shine a public spotlight on the plan. He started with his position within the Durham NAACP. The only white member of its executive committee, Schelp had been working to build racial bridges for months. A former Peace Corps worker with a master's degree in public administration, six years in the Congo and a long record of neighborhood activism, Schelp had recently been asked to organize the NAACP's "community committee" to bring diverse Durhamites together to work on common initiatives. The five-member group agreed to take on the asphalt project, and the NAACP advanced the committee $50 for publicity. When the measure was scheduled for a Sept. 16 vote before the City Council, Schelp mobilized letter-writers through an e-mail list-serv that began with the five people on his community committee. It now contains 300 members. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 166 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way Schelp, two other NAACP leaders and the minister of Morehead Avenue Baptist Church co- authored a letter to the editor published in The Herald-Sun on Sept. 16, the day before the scheduled vote. "It's bad enough that developers are forcing limited local resources to be shifted from less affluent in-town neighborhoods to newly-paved suburban developments," they wrote. "Must we now face the threat of hazardous exposures from the asphalt industry?" Council members, beginning to receive protest e-mails and facing voters in an election just six weeks away, voted unanimously to table the proposal. "No one was real excited about this issue once it turned into a hot potato," says Anderson, the attorney for Asphalt Experts. The neophyte coalition celebrated the delayed vote and began in earnest to outline their next attack. They targeted three issues: the lack of public notice, the potential health hazards, and the disproportionate effect on low-income minority neighborhoods. Neighborhood associations across the county and churches in East Durham began to spread the word through their memberships. Schelp called Duke University officials to alert them their rare books storage is next door to one of the potential asphalt plant sites. He asked the Eno River Association to look at water quality issues, since one of the potential sites sits along the Eno. Local environmentalists compiled data about the effects of asphalt plant pollution, including the dangers of toxic emissions from benzene and other byproducts of hot asphalt mixing. Prompted by the protesters, leaders of Environmental Defense, a national advocacy group, wrote a letter to the mayor and city manager citing Durham's ranking among the "dirtiest counties" in the United States based on an average individual's added cancer risk from air pollution. In a letter signed by Director Jane Preyer, the group urged the council to kill the measure, saying more asphalt plants in Durham would raise the county's already dangerous levels of acrolein, a chemical emitted by asphalt plants. According to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, exposure to asphalt fumes can cause headaches, skin rashes, fatigue, reduced appetite, throat and eye irritation, and coughing. Asphalt paving workers, for example, have reported breathing problems, asthma, bronchitis, and skin irritation, according to OSHA, and studies have reported lung, stomach, and skin cancers following chronic exposures to asphalt fumes. N.C. Central University professor Yolanda Anderson lent the group an intern and the campus CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 167 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way student group, Central Environmental Action Student Effort (CEASE) got involved. CEASE printed a fact sheet and launched a public education campaign to spread the word to residents in the predominantly black neighborhoods around campus, where four of the potential sites lie. As they walked door-to-door, nine out of 10 residents they talked to had no idea they were living adjacent to a potential asphalt factory, with its burning petroleum smell and dump trucks trailing fumes down the street, says intern Melissa Lewis. One Morehead Hills resident on the e-mail list eventually sent Schelp a $50 check, saying he was glad to double the group's budget. When the industry reps said publicly they were seeking "independent data" from the state Division of Air Quality to counteract their critics, Schelp asked DAQ Director Alan Klimek to address the citizens' concerns as well. In a stock response the DAQ has given in similar controversies across the state, Klimek replied that the location of new asphalt plants is strictly "a local issue." Klimek wrote an op-ed piece last year echoing the same sentiments. CAPA, the industry lobby group, likes Klimek's argument so much it now includes his essay in the organization's public information packet. The industry's influence is even more ingrained at the state level than it is locally, says Zeller, who attends DAQ advisory committee meetings where "The environmental groups don't show up but the industry shows up in droves." In Durham, as letters from across town poured in to newspapers and City Hall, the local industry reps turned to their state association for backup. CAPA Executive Director Christie Barbee shot back at critics, writing a letter to local newspapers countering Schelp's first attack. She called the environmental injustice issue "baseless" and touted the industry's safety record and Durham's need for asphalt. "I got a copy of [Schelp's] letter and there was a lot of misinformation about our industry," says Barbee. "No one in our industry strives to be controversial or to stir up trouble. But as city limits grow, you've got more and more area that needs pavement." Having only two plants in Durham raises the cost of asphalt, says Barbee, citing cheaper prices in areas like Charlotte-Mecklenburg, where there are more than a dozen plants. "Durham is a good market," she says. "And Durham certainly could use the jobs that a plant would bring." Asked how many employees a plant needs, Barbee estimated "six to eight," but added that the plants also generate related jobs for truck drivers and pavement workers. As the grassroots organizers mounted their campaign, it was the accusations of environmental CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 168 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way injustice that surprised the city staffers the most, including the interim planning director. "I've heard of it in other places, but it's new for here," Hails says. Actually, environmental justice issues in East Durham date back to the 1980s. A chemical company called Armageddon Recycling Co. on Peabody Street was cited repeatedly for leaking barrels that eventually exploded on March 10, 1983. A community group that formed to protest, Citizens for a Safer East Durham, pointed out in its flyers that the situation wouldn't have dragged on so long if the plant were "on the other side of town." Another chemical plant in the same vicinity, SouthChem Inc. on East Pettigrew Street, was the scene of a massive chemical fire on Sept. 3, 1986. Today, SouthChem is still in business and ranks as Durham County's third-largest polluter, according to Environmental Defense. Overall, Durham's minority residents are four times more likely than whites to live near facilities emitting air pollutants, according to the Environmental Defense scorecard, while families below poverty are also four times more likely to live near polluting facilities than those above poverty. "If you're poor and black, that's what you get," says Schelp. The future of the asphalt proposal may be decided within the month. The Joint City/County Planning Committee discussed it again on Feb. 6 and asked for more input from the Environmental Affairs Board. This time around, the industry may have even one more vote, thanks to another behind-the-scenes move. On Oct. 15, the City Council appointed Asphalt Experts attorney Will Anderson to the attorney slot on the EAB. Anderson replaced outgoing member Jim Conner, an environmental activist and lawyer. The council has scheduled a discussion for Feb. 21. Whether the plan will then be scheduled for a March 4 vote depends on the council, says City Manager Marcia Conner, while complaining about how much time her staff has had to spend responding to the "overwhelming number of e- mails." Mayor Bell, whose inbox has also been flooded with protests, predicts the grassroots effort has accomplished its mission. "I don't think this has a chance of going anywhere," he says. "Let me put it this way, I haven't had anybody write me saying we ought to be supporting this." If they succeed in changing the zoning law, Asphalt Experts and Rifenburg Construction may build a plant together, according to Stanziale. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 169 Independent Weekly: News: Feature: Paving the Way Schelp and his coalition want the setbacks for asphalt plants to stay at 1,500 feet. They want the planning staff to learn about environmental justice issues. And they want the rules for public notice of text amendments rewritten so they trigger letters to affected neighbors like rezonings do. On the last point, they already have support from the mayor. "Given the amount of attention that's been given to that issue, I think the staff will look at a little different process," Bell says, though the staff is not so sure. Assistant planning director Bonnie Estes says with text amendments, "It's difficult to know who's impacted, so it would be difficult to know who to notify." Bocckino and a fellow planning commission member have proposed another system reform: a new ethics policy requiring planning staff and commission members to disclose their personal financial interests. County Commissioner Reckhow supports improvements to the public notice process and the ethics proposal. But in the bigger picture, she wants the government to balance the interests of people who live here and the people who profit. "We recognize there's a gap and we're looking for ways to level the playing field," she says. "We need to do a much better job empowering our citizens." URL for this story: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=17208 CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 170 Coal Tar-Containing Asphalt Resource or Hazardous Waste? Journal of Industrial Ecology Volume 11, Issue 4, Date: October 2007, Pages: 99-116 Yvonne Andersson-Sköld, Karin Andersson, Bo Lind, Anna (Nyström) Claesson, Lennart Larsson, Pascal Suer, Torbjörn Jacobson Abstract: Coal tar was used in Sweden for the production of asphalt and for the drenching of stabilization gravel until 1973. The tar has high concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), some of which may be strongly carcinogenic. Approximately 20 million tonnes of tar-containing asphalt is present in the public roads in Sweden. Used asphalt from rebuilding can be classified as hazardous waste according to the Swedish Waste Act. The cost of treating the material removed as hazardous waste can be very high due to the large amount that has to be treated, and the total environmental benefit is unclear. The transport of used asphalt to landfill or combustion will affect other environmental targets. The present project, based on three case studies of road projects in Sweden, evaluates the consequences of four scenarios for handling the material: reuse, landfill, biological treatment, and incineration. The results show that reuse of the coal tar- containing materials in new road construction is the most favorable alternative in terms of cost, material use, land use, energy consumption, and air emissions. http://www.energystorm.us/Coal_Tar_containing_Asphalt_Resource_Or_Hazardous_Waste_- r268391.html CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 171 Green Asphalt and Concrete: Eco Friendly Streets By Nick August 14, 2008 There have been several developments as of late relating to the greening of the world’s streets and highways with either asphalt and concrete. Lots of forgotten energy and materials goes into our roads and highways, which are just a bridge for more pollution, making recent developments with greener, more environmentally friendly asphalt and concrete more exciting. Air Pollution Free in Hengelo -Dutch Concrete paving stones The recent green developments started in the Netherlands when the Dutch’s University of Twente developed a green concrete paving stone that converted the smog, acid rain causing nitrogen oxide into a nitrate, which is not harmful for the environment in small quantities. Unfortunately, we use nitrates all the time in fertilizer, so it could potentially be toxic to humans or animals. The Dutch will be testing it with a grant in Hengelo and scientists will be evaluating it for widespread use. Air Pollution Reducing Asphalt in Madrid Engadget reports that Madrid has a similar plan in place with new asphalt that comparable to the Dutch’s concrete paving stones. Madrid’s asphalt, too, can convert nitrogen oxide from exhausts into less harmful oxides which can just be washed away with rainfall. This asphalt is suppose to be able to get rid of 90% of the nitrogen oxides in the air on a sunny day since it relies on sunlight to work at capacity. Ironic that global warming induced radiation is helpful in combating air pollution. But this is a great development and has a lot of potential. Laying Cool Green Asphalt is Cool Earlier this year, the Matter Network discusses how laying asphalt while it is cool instead of hot can save 7 times as much energy during the process. With thousands of miles of US roads getting paved each year, that is some serious energy savings. The problem lies in the fact that US engineers, unlike those overseas, are only familiar with heated laying techniques and measures to predict how well a road will perform. With no cool laying guidelines, it’s not realistic for cool laying techniques to be used, yet. So after some control tests headed by University of Wisconsin civil engineering professor Bahia, cool asphalt may become cooler in the civil engineering world thus allowing us to green our roads and environments. http://www.ecofuss.com/green-asphalt-and-concrete-eco-friendly-streets/ CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 172 References Anderson-Sköld, Yvonne; Anderson, Karin; Bo, Lind; Claesson, Anna; Larsson, Lennart; Suer, Pascal; Jacobson, Torbjörn. (2007, October). Coal Tar-Containing Asphalt Resource or Hazardous Waste? Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 99-116. (abstract only). Asphalt Pollution Probe Extends. (2004, July 7th). Recycling Today. Available at http://www.recyclingtoday.com/news/news.asp?ID=6040 August, Nick. (2008, August 14th). Green Asphalt and Concrete: Eco Friendly Solutions. EcoFuss. Available at http://www.ecofuss.com/green-asphalt-and-concrete-eco-friendly-streets/ BE SAFE Campaign. (undated) Asphalt Plant Pollution [Brochure]. Falls Church. VA: Lou Zeller. Availible at http://www.besafe.net.com/Asphalt.pdf Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. (1997). Carcinogens Discovered Near Maymead Plant [Press Release]. Glendale Springs, NC. Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. (1997). Groups Charge Maymead with Intentional Violations [Press Release]. Glendale Springs, NC. Available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20010303020834/www.boonenc.org/CAP/press_release.html Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund. (2001). Mountain Air Action Project Asphalt Plant Campaign Report. Glendale Springs, NC. Available at http://www.bredl.org/pdf/factsheet-asphaltplants.pdf Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund. (2005). APAC: Polluting Without Boundaries. Glendale Springs, NC. Available at: http://www.bredl.org/pdf/050923_APAC-Atlantic_Report.pdf Blue Ridge Environmental Defense Fund. (2007). Asphalt Plants: Contaminants of Concern [Fact Sheet]. Glendale Springs, NC. Available at: http://www.bredl.org/pdf/factsheet-asphaltplants.pdf Boffetta, Paolo; Burstyn, Igor. (2003). Studies of carcinogenicity of bitumen fume in humans. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 43, pp 1-2. Brandt, Evan. (2009, April 5th). Asphalt plant, and its pollution potential, part of quarry deal. The Pottstown Mercury. Available at http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2009/04/05/news/srv0000005039118.prt Calgary for Clean Air. (2007). http://calgarycleanair.com. Accessed July 2009. Chase, Robert M.; Liss, Gary M.; Cole, Donarld C.; Heath, Bonnie. (1994). Toxic Health Effects Including Reversible Macrothrombocytosis in Workers Exposed to Asphalt Fumes. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 25, pp. 279 Citizens Against Pollution. (undated). Health Survey Impact of Asphalt at Roby Green Road and US 421. Watauga County, NC: Ronald C. Chivers. Evans, James V. (1985). Asphalt. In Martin Grayson and David Eckroths (Eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, pp. 137-139. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fernandez, Jennifer. (2001, February 23). Group Opposes Asphalt Plant: The Plant Would be about Half Mile from Colfax Elementary School. News and Record Indians Appeal Asphalt Plant. (undated). Mendocino Country Environmentalist, pp. 6, 8. CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 173 Karaman, Ali; Pirim, Ibrahim. (2009). Exposure to bitumen fumes and genotoxic effects on Turkish asphalt workers. Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp 321-326. (abstract only) Lang, Leslie H. (2004, December). Increased suicide rate is possibly linked to chemicals released from nearby asphalt plants, study suggests. UNC School of Medicine. Available at http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/dec04/weisler121004.html Montague, Peter. (1997). Childhood Cancer and Pollution. Rachel's Environmental and Health News, #559. Available at http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/pdf/Rachels_Environment_Health_News_564.pdf Nadkami, Ravi. (1996). Asphalt plant emissions: What are the issues during site selection? Massachusetts Association of Health Boards Quarterly, 14, pp 9-10. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services: NIOSH(1997, June 23). Literature Review of Health Effects Caused by Occupational Exposure to Asphalt Fumes. Available at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=0DA9C8CD-F1F6-975E-7631B117EEDF8C3D North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality. (undated). Asphalt Plants: Frequently Asked Questions [Brochure]. Raleigh, NC. Available at: http://www.ncair.org/news/brochures/asphalt.pdf North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality. (1997). Letter to Maymead Materials, Inc. Raleigh, NC: Alan. W. Klimek. Partanen, Timo; Boffetta, Paolo. (1994). Cancer Risk in Asphalt Workers and Roofers: Review and Meta- Anaysis of Epidemiologic Studies. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 26, pp 721 Sittig, Marshall. (1985). Asphalt Fumes. Pp 97-99 in Handbook of Taxis and Hazardous Chemicals and Carcinogens (2nd ed.). Park Ridges, NJ: Noyes Storm, Jennifer. (2002, January 20). Paving the Way: Behind-the-Scenes Lobbying Allows Big-Money Interests like the Asphalt Industry to Steamroll Citizens. The Independent Weekly. Available at http:www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=17208 Tepper, Allison L.; Burr, Gregory A.; Feng, Amy; Singal, Mitchell; Miller, Aubrey K.; Hanley, Kevin W.; Olsen, Larry D. (2006). Acute symptoms associated with asphalt fume exposure among road pavers. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 49, No. 9, pp. 728-739. (abstract only). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2000). Health Effects of Occupational Exposure to Asphalt. Pp. viii-xi, xiv-xviii. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/01-110.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. (1995). Mineral Products Industry: Hot Mix Asphalt Plants. Pp. 1-10, 19-36 in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Source (5th ed.). Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch11/related/ea-report.pdf Van Metre, Peter C.; Mahler, Barbara J.; Wilson, Jennifer T. (2009). PAHs Underfoot: Contaminated Dust from Coal-Tar Sealcoated Pavement is Widespread in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 43 (1), pp. 20-25. (abstract only) Weisler, Richard. (2003). Childhood Brain Cancers Near Asphalt Industry in Salisbury, NC [Presentation]. Available at http://www.bredl.org/air/ssimages/Childhoodcancers_asphalt.pdf CHEJ Asphalt Fact Pack 174 “CHEJ is the strongest environmental organization today – the one that is making the greatest impact on changing the way our society does business.” Ralph Nader “CHEJ has been a pioneer nationally in alerting parents to the environmental hazards that can affect the health of their children.” New York, New York “Again, thank you for all that you do for us out here. I would have given up a long time ago if I had not connected with CHEJ!” Claremont, New Hampshire Center for Health, Environment & Justice P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 chej@chej.org www.chej.org 4/10/23, 12:24 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt and gravel pit expansion. Adjacent Landowner's Testimony https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762743698020490424&simpl=msg-f:1762743698020490424 1/2 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Asphalt and gravel pit expansion. Adjacent Landowner's Testimony 1 message 'Barbara Oliver' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 5:36 PM Reply-To: Barbara Oliver <bmoliver5@icloud.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Cc: Dave Gourley Sr <david.gourley@comcast.net>, B Oliver <bmoliver5@yahoo.com>, Nancy Gourley <nancygourley@comcast.net> To Whom it May Concern: I agree with my brother-in-law, Dave Gourley and my sister Nancy, who are co-owners with me in the property adjacent to the cement plant. In addition to what Dave has shared I’d like to add some points that concern me greatly. First let me introduce myself. My name is Barbara Mabey Oliver. My family has now enjoyed Star Valley for 6 generations. My Uncle Ren Mabey’s family owns a ranch on the other side of the valley outside of Afton. I am a grandmother now but I first came to the valley as a small child. My father taught me how to fly fish on the Snake and Grey’s River. After our morning fishing we’d head over to the cheese factory to have our ice cream. My dad’s favorite was the apple pie with vanilla ice cream. It’s where my addiction to Swiss cheese started. Since then I've brought up my family enjoying the same things. Now it’s time for my grandchildren and their children. What my sister and I did together was buy a beautiful piece of property in Etna. We wanted to have a place where we could bing our children and grandchildren. We bought a place where we could also bring out horses. You see we are horse lovers, cowgirls. We wanted a place where we could live the Wyoming lifestyle. We wanted to give the next generations a place where they could also learn to be cowgirls and cowboys. We love Star Valley. We are not newcomers. My brother-in-law, Dave Gourley went over the main points. I want to tell you what is bothering me. First: the existing gravel pit is ugly and very dusty. We were not happy when that went in. We were told it wasn’t a big deal. They’ll just bulldoze it over and we won't know it was ever there. Now they're introducing an asphalt/cement plant. Have you seen what a asphalt/cement plant looks like? Then yes, next, when the new highway went in they took our frontage land and our entry access into the property. Second: I have asthma. I am shocked that the people of Star Valley are contemplating allowing this plant. I can feel my lungs caking up with the debris as I speak, and it scares me. Will I ever be able to live on my land? Will it be safe for my grandchildren? It’s not just me and my family that it’s going to hurt. It’s going to be a health hazard for everyone. You know how air is. Once you have chemicals floating in the air they don’t stay over the cement facility. The breezes will share the pollutants with everyone from Palisades to Afton and more, affecting our children on school playgrounds, people fishing along the rivers and hiking the trails, and the moms at home with their babies. Im sure you’ve seen how other valleys with so called progress hold in the smog. To me, seeing Star Valley full of pollutants is nothing but a nightmare. Stop it now. We are stewards of heaven on earth. We need to take care of it. And lastly, I am reminded of another beautiful valley in Northern Utah that extends into Idaho called Cache Valley. This is the valley where Utah State University nestles on the hillside. Until they started developing this valley it was known for its majestic mountains and clean air. In the past 10 or so years it has become one of the most polluted communities in the state of Utah. During temperature inversion days regular health warnings are issued to residence. "Stay indoors!" The air quality if now worse than the Salt Lake Valley many days during the year. And as we know Salt Lake Valley is often listed as one of the worse air quality areas in the country. It seems that the Salt Lake Valley, Cache Valley, and Star Valley have something in common. They are all surrounded by majestic mountains on all sides and temperature inversions quickly trap particulates in the air that can stay for weeks. It requires another storm system to blow out the pollution and the cycle begins anew. I DO NOT WANT MY BELOVED STAR VALLEY TO BECOME ANOTHER CACHE VALLEY! We need to learn from the mistakes of others and find a better way to obtain desired building materials without jeopardizing the natural beauty of the area and health of us all. I’m attaching a publication that has put together many articles and studies concerning the problems associated with asphalt and cement plants. The following is a list of just a few of the items of concern. Please read the publication. It will give you a look at what we are up against and why we need to stop now. The table of contents lists these concerns: 4/10/23, 12:24 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt and gravel pit expansion. Adjacent Landowner's Testimony https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762743698020490424&simpl=msg-f:1762743698020490424 2/2 Underfoot Contaminated Dust Increase Suicide Rate is Possible links to Chemicals Released from Nearby Asphalt Plants Carcinogens discovered near plant Children Brain Caners Cancer Risk from Incidental Ingestion Exposure to PAH Respiratory Symptoms with Asphalt Fuels Childhood Cancer and Pollution Asphalt Plants Contaminants of Concern Lobbying Allows Big-Money interests like the Asphalt Industry to Steamroll Citizens. Here are a few of my concerns this is one page of the publication. Please do not let another asphalt/cement plant be introduced into our beautiful valley. Sincerely, Barbara Mabey Oliver 4/11/23, 6:52 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762849791577166813&simpl=msg-f:1762849791577166813 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Asphalt plant 1 message Barbara Rossberg <babs.blackdog@gmail.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:42 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov I strongly Do Not want any asphalt plant in Edna. Barbara Rossberg 709 Vista W Dr Star Valley Ranch, Wy 83127 Sent from my iPhone 4/9/23, 4:04 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762580071139420267&simpl=msg-f:1762580071139420267 1/2 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation Gravel Pit 1 message 'Becky Wagner' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:15 PM Reply-To: Becky Wagner <wagner102000@yahoo.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov This email is in regards to the proposed Asphalt Plant and concrete plant. I am a homeowner that will be severely impacted by this plant. We are currently building our home very close to this proposed asphalt plant. I strongly oppose a hot gravel pit being put in so close to where I will be living and raising my children. We moved here for the clean mountain air. These plants put off an obnoxious smell along with many toxins that are harmful to breathe. It will also make my home valuable plummet. Please do not approve this grave pit! Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Becky Wagner 4/9/23, 4:04 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762580071139420267&simpl=msg-f:1762580071139420267 2/2 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 4/10/23, 12:23 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - File No: 103 CUP 23, Sunroc Corp https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762751313994470781&simpl=msg-f:1762751313994470781 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> File No: 103 CUP 23, Sunroc Corp 1 message Beth Missel <lizabetty@gmail.com>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 7:37 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom it may concern, We wish to go on record as being vehemently opposed to the Conditional Use Permit Application brought forth by Sunroc Corporation for expansion of the existing 10-acre gravel pit operation to include a Hot Mix plant and Concrete Batch plant in the residential area of Etna. We can see this acreage from our home in Nordic Ranches. It is located within 2 miles of us. It is downwind of the Nordic Ranches Subdivision as well as numerous private homesteads along Sanderson Lane and Cty Road 110. We will be completely and thoroughly fumigated by the noxious odors of this endeavor every time the wind blows (daily in Wyoming!). This operation has the potential to lower the home value of every property in the immediate area. There is NO NEED for this expansion. We value the beauty of Star Valley. That is why we moved here -- to escape industrialization. Please take this monstrosity elsewhere!! Sincerely Thomas K and Elizabeth N Missel 34 Lariat Dr, Nordic Ranches Etna, WY 83118 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…1/8 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update 12 messages Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:51 PM To: "robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov" <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>, "emmett.mavy@lincolncountywy.gov" <emmett.mavy@lincolncountywy.gov> Cc: "planning@LCWY.org" <planning@lcwy.org> Robert, Attached is an updated map for the Sunroc, Etna Pit conditional use permit application. It has included the traffic count and other information that you requested. Please let me know if you have any questions. Bill King PROPERTY/ENVIRONMENTAL SPEC. O 801.222.3306 C 801.380.8706 WWW.CLYDEINC.COM Etna CUP Map 1.31.23.pdf 463K Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 11:08 AM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com> Cc: "emmett.mavy@lincolncountywy.gov" <emmett.mavy@lincolncountywy.gov>, "planning@LCWY.org" <planning@lcwy.org> Received, thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…2/8 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 3:23 PM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com> Bill, Attached is information requested as per our conversation to table the gravel pit proposal until the March 22, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Final Planning & Zoning.pdf 105 PZ 15 APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL.pdf Table Request Letter.pdf Planing & Zoning Commission Agenda 1-27-16 Can... Notice.pdf Staff Report for PZC 11-18-15 Mtg.pdf Thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 3:51 PM Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:09 PM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Robert, Attached is the updated CUP application for the Sunroc Corporation, Etna Pit. Let me know if you have any questions. We can go over it together if you would like. Bill King 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…3/8 From: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2023 3:23 PM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com> Subject: Re: Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update Bill, Attached is information requested as per our conversation to table the gravel pit proposal until the March 22, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Thank you for your cooperation. Final Planning & Zoning.pdf 105 PZ 15 APPLICATION WITHDRAWAL.pdf Table Request Letter.pdf Planing & Zoning Commission Agenda 1-27-16 Can... Notice.pdf Staff Report for PZC 11-18-15 Mtg.pdf Thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…4/8 [Quoted text hidden] SRC.Etna.CUP.Application2.24.23.pdf 3272K Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 4:39 PM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Robert, Can you let me know when the public hearing will be. Thanks, Bill King [Quoted text hidden] Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:36 AM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com> Bill, I apologize for the late response. I had hip replacement surgery on February 21st and am still recovering. The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled your application for an April 19, 2023 Public Hearing. I will reach out to you soon if I have any questions. Thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 1:39 PM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Robert, What time will the public hearing be on April 19th? Best of luck with the surgery healing. 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…5/8 [Quoted text hidden] Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 10:31 AM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Robert, What time will the public hearing be on the 19? Is there any additional information that you will need from me? [Quoted text hidden] Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 7:12 PM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com> The public hearing is scheduled for 6pm. Thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 11:29 AM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>, Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> Bill, I have been under the weather and am trying to catch up with things. What would be really helpful is more detail with regard to the proposed concrete batch plant and asphalt mix plant. With regard to the concrete batch plant, please provide information including a photo of the type of plant, i.e.: batching plant capacity ranges, whether it is stationary or mobile, will this be a batch or continuous mixing, is this a single stair or double stair process layout, will it be ready mix or central mix and will the mixer be twin-shaft horizontal or planetary vertical? With regard to the proposed hot mix asphalt plant, please describe whether it is a drum mix or batch mixed plant. Also provide a graphic of what the plant will look like. Thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…6/8 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 8:27 AM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>, Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> Robert, Please see the response to your questions below. 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…7/8 Bill King From: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 11:30 AM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>; Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> Subject: Re: Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update 4/19/23, 8:24 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1756580292540635638&simpl=msg-f:175658029254063563…8/8 Bill, I have been under the weather and am trying to catch up with things. What would be really helpful is more detail with regard to the proposed concrete batch plant and asphalt mix plant. With regard to the concrete batch plant, please provide information including a photo of the type of plant, i.e.: 1. batching plant capacity ranges :0-150 cy per hour 2. whether it is stationary or mobile, Stationary 3. will this be a batch or continuous mixing, Dry batch 4. is this a single stair or double stair process layout, I don’t know what this means 5. will it be ready mix or central mix and Ready mix 6. will the mixer be twin-shaft horizontal or planetary vertical? I don’ think this is a ready mix application, sounds like he asking about impact crushers. With regard to the proposed hot mix asphalt plant, please describe whether it is a drum mix or batch mixed plant. Also provide a graphic of what the plant will look like. The hot plant will be a drum mix plant. [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 9:24 AM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lcwy.org> Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] 4/10/23, 1:23 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762815193947644307&simpl=msg-f:1762815193947644307 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc CUP application 1 message Carol Kocher <kocher1942@yahoo.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 12:32 PM To: robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov I recently moved from Ohio to Etna Wyoming. I built my home on Rock Farm Court in fall of 2022. It is a beautiful residential neighborhood with great views. I never dreamed I would have to worry about a batch plant being proposed so close to my new home or that the existing gravel pit would be expanded to within 300’ of my family’s property. Please vote no. Sent from my iPad Carol Kocher 4/9/23, 3:23 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - SAY NO TO Sunroc https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762710597713966732&simpl=msg-f:1762710597713966732 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> SAY NO TO Sunroc 1 message Clairey Sasser Grubbs <claireygrubbs@gmail.com>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 8:50 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom it may concern, My husband, Cody Grubbs and myself, Clairey Grubbs adamantly oppose the Sunroc’s application to expand the existing gravel pit and set up an asphalt plant and concrete plant on rock farm road. WE DO NOT NEED A HOT MIX ASPHALT PLANT and CONCRETE BATCH PLANT in the middle of a residential area. The smell of these plants are horrendous and our home is directly down wind of the proposed area. Do we even know the long term effects of breathing in such toxins? I’m absolutely not willing to put my family on the line to find out. We live in a beautiful valley with beautiful people. I’m beyond disappointed with the planning and zoning committee. Over and over things are approved that are not helping to maintain the beauty of our valley. When will it stop? Apparently money talks. Between the RV parks and storage units popping up around every bend you’d think you folks would start to see the decline of the landscape. But no, here we sit with yet another and far worse proposal on the table. Please, put an end to these careless decisions. Please, consider what benefits the whole valley and not just Sunroc Corp. We beg of you to hear our voices. This decision will not only effect the neighboring properties, it will effect entire neighborhoods and families miles away. Again, I don’t want to breathe in the toxic odors from this plant and I most certainly do not want my child to. I care deeply about this community and my neighbors. Let’s Keep Star Valley pristine and think about the end game here please. SAY NO TO SUNROC! Sincerely, The Grubbs Family- Cody, Clairey, and Tanner Trail Ridge Subdivision 164 Badger Rd Alpine, WY 83128 4/10/23, 12:26 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc proposal for a concrete and hot asphalt plant in Etna (FILE No. 103 CUP 23) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762740346848574972&simpl=msg-f:1762740346848574972 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc proposal for a concrete and hot asphalt plant in Etna (FILE No. 103 CUP 23) 1 message C Harbeck <etnawyo@gmail.com>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 4:43 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom it may concern, As a tax payer, concerned citizen, registered voter and an asthmatic living in the affected area (490 Birch Creek Road, Etna 83118) of this proposed business expansion, I wish to state my opposition to it being permitted. Our taxes last year and our assessment this year have increased drastically, more than 100%. Thus, it seems that we are regarded as living in prime residential space. Now some in Lincoln County (or Utah) would promote the expansion of an annoyingly dusty business in plain view of our house to a smoky and noxious fumed nuisance. There are already enough concrete/asphalt plants in Star Valley to support road construction and similar activities. Why ruin the view and further degrade the environmental experience for which many have selected our area for a residence? You are respectfully requested to deny the permit for what amounts to an enhanced eyesore in a residential area. Clara Harbeck 490 Birch Creek Rd Etna WY 83118 4/11/23, 9:27 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Concrete Batch Plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8616183874411989173&simpl=msg-a:r-136002899030156…1/2 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Concrete Batch Plant 1 message Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Bill King to Planning, me Robert, Please see the response to your questions below. Concrete Batch Plants - ERIE Strayer What is the difference between an asphalt batch plant and a drum mix plant? - Quora Bill King From: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 11:30 AM To: Bill King <billking@clydeinc.com>; Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> Subject: Re: Sunroc Etna Pit CUP Application Update Bill, I have been under the weather and am trying to catch up with things. What would be really helpful is more detail with regard to the proposed concrete batch plant and asphalt mix plant. With regard to the concrete batch plant, please provide information including a photo of the type of plant, i.e.: 1. batching plant capacity ranges :0-150 cy per hour 2. whether it is stationary or mobile, Stationary 3. will this be a batch or continuous mixing, Dry batch 4. is this a single stair or double stair process layout, I don’t know what this means 5. will it be ready mix or central mix and Ready mix 6. will the mixer be twin-shaft horizontal or planetary vertical? I don’ think this is a ready mix application, sounds like he asking about impact crushers. With regard to the proposed hot mix asphalt plant, please describe whether it is a drum mix or batch mixed plant. Also provide a graphic of what the plant will look like. The hot plant will be a Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 2 attachments 4/11/23, 9:27 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Concrete Batch Plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-8616183874411989173&simpl=msg-a:r-136002899030156…2/2 image004.jpg 29K image003.png 293K 4/11/23, 6:51 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt plant Etna Wy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762852347058982215&simpl=msg-f:1762852347058982215 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Asphalt plant Etna Wy 1 message 'Cora Pfaff' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:23 PM Reply-To: Cora Pfaff <gonsleddin@yahoo.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov I am writing regards to an Asphalt plan proposal near residences, including my home. Asphalt plant has its uses, but should be put in a commercial area. County rd. 110 is not only filled with residences, but also new subdivision that are in the process of housing people. In an article dated January 22, 2021. It’s states that Volatile organic compounds are particles of dangerous substances emitted into the air after certain chemical reactions. They vaporize at room temperature, so they stay airborne indefinitely. Asphalt plants emit significant amounts of these gases, and living close to one is hazardous to your health. Besides the common, Headaches, Nausea, Dizzyness and Fatigue, Nose, Throat, and eye irritation, It is known to cause Liver, Kidney and Lung damage. It has been proven that it emits more toxic gases than Diesel trucks and cars in Southern California. This is not a project for a small town. Nevada and even parts of Wyoming have plenty of open sparse land to build these on. This plant even being considered is ludicrous an should be stopped. Cora Pfaff County rd 110. Etna, Wy Sent from my iPad 4/19/23, 8:21 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Proposed Mix Plant in Etna https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762903111430307130&simpl=msg-f:1762903111430307130 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Proposed Mix Plant in Etna 1 message 32Lakes1 <32lakesblvd@gmail.com>Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:50 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom it may concern. We recently moved to North Star Valley. And one of its main draw to us was the ability to walk outside and breathe clean fresh air. Coming from the east coast I'm well aware of what a hot mix plant smells like in operation. We have such a senic drive through this valley. Not only for full time residents like myself, but also the thousands of visitors each year. Would be a shame for the valley to smell like the La Brea Tar pits as you passed through. Also we have a new business in the valley that is focused on the outdoors and the beauty of this area. Airstream of Wyoming and the Grand Buffalo RV Resort. Both just two lots over from where the plant is proposed. I feel as though this type of industry would be harmful to businesses like theirs and the surrounding residential areas. I would ask that the planning department deny such proposal. Thank you for your time. Daniel Melton 4/9/23, 4:17 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corp Gravel Pit Expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762556742942285457&simpl=msg-f:1762556742942285457 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corp Gravel Pit Expansion 1 message Darin Kaufman <darin.kaufman@wyo.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 4:04 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom It may concern< Thank you for the opportunity to comment. WYDOT has no objections and no comments on the proposed gravel pit expansion. Thank you. Darin Kaufman, P.E., PTOE WYDOT District 3 Traffic Engineer 3200 Elk Street Rock Springs, WY 82902 Office: 307.352.3034 Cell: 307.389.0235 E-Mail to and from me, in connection with the transaction of public business, is subject to the Wyoming Public Records Act and may be disclosed to third parties. 5/25/23, 9:30 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Fwd: Table of gravel pit hearing https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1764430030586101754&simpl=msg-f:1764430030586101754 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Fwd: Table of gravel pit hearing 1 message Mikayla Hibbert <mikayla.hibbert@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 8:19 AM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: David Gourley <DAVID.GOURLEY@comcast.net> Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:48 PM Subject: Table of gravel pit hearing To: Mikayla Hibbert <mikayla.hibbert@lincolncountywy.gov> We are opposed to Sunroc Corporation request to table project 103 CUP 23 Sunroc Gravel Pit Expansion for a later date. We traveled a long distance to Lincoln County on April 19 and have arranged our schedule to be available for the upcoming May 3rd meeting as well. Postponing the meeting from May until June will make it impossible for us to attend the hearing. I am alarmed that Sunroc was not adequately prepared for the April 19th hearing and are now asking for a delay in the process. We deserve a speedy resolution to this proposed expansion and a delay will only hamper our ability to attend the hearing. Since we own the adjoining property to the immediate North of the current gravel pit, any expansion or change in function of the pit, will have a major impact on the appraised value of our land, the lose of most development options, the health of the community and the smell of the air. I want to commend the Planning Commission for their vote on this application during the April 19th meeting. I witness a concerned community come together and speak their objections loud and clear to the gravel pit expansion. I also witnessed a Planning board listened to the Lincoln County citizens, give the application consideration, and then make a decision to stand with the community in opposition of the application. Thank You, Dave and Nancy Gourley -- Mikayla Hibbert Office Assistant Lincoln County Planning Office (307) 877-2101 mikayla.hibbert@lincolncountywy.gov 4/9/23, 3:28 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Proposed asphalt and gravel pit expansion Etna https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762669503666486951&simpl=msg-f:1762669503666486951 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Proposed asphalt and gravel pit expansion Etna 1 message David Gourley <david.gourley@comcast.net>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 9:56 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Cc: Barbara Oliver <bmoliver5@yahoo.com> To Whom It May Concern, Years ago my wife and her sister purchased 59 acres of land in beautiful Star Valley near Etna. It was our dream to build there one day or to develop it into a community that would be in harmony with the unique character of the area. Our dreams now are being further eroded by the potential of an asphalt business immediately on our south fence line. This is not our first problem with this property, but it is certainly the most serious. (1) the planning commission allowed a gravel pit to be opened next to our property which we were told was temporary. It was later expanded and now they want to add additional elements to the project which will devalue our land and cause smell and health concerns for local residence. (2) The State of Wyoming decided to take possession of a few acres to widen the main highway. It was then we learned that we owned to the center of the highway in our property description and were given about 10 dollars compensation for that land in addition to an amount far less per acre than we had paid years ago. (3) We are now told that because the highway was widened, we no longer have access from said highway to our land for the purpose of development. Needless to say, we have great concern for our investment as well as for the community of Etna. Since there already exists other similar operations in the valley, this expansion is in our opinion unnecessary. Star Valley has always been admired for its healthy lifestyles, its pristine vistas, and it unpolluted crisp air. Expansion of this project would detract from this image and reduce to potential of desirable area to live around Etna. We are in total opposition to this proposal. The land we own would be devalued extensively and our plans to create additional housing for Etna would become impossible. Over the past several months we have been in contact with our neighboring property owner ( Ted Wagner) to combine our acreage into a larger development. We have been partly moved this direction due to the restrictions of access from the newly widened highway. We believe housing would be a better use of our land, create a better tax base for the county and provide more housing in the Etna area which is desperately needed. David Gourley Nancy Gourley Barbara Oliver I plan to attend the meeting in Kemmerer April 19th. Dave Gourley (801) 814-9787 Sent from my iPhone 4/9/23, 3:48 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation FILE No. 103 CUP 23 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762656430455953915&simpl=msg-f:1762656430455953915 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation FILE No. 103 CUP 23 1 message dda49@silverstar.com <dda49@silverstar.com>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 6:29 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Yet again, another proposal that will deeply impact the quality of life for the residents of rural, residential Etna. Should we again be impacted by another out of state company with no ties to or concerns for our community? I think not. We chose to live here because of the quiet rural lifestyle and already must deal with the dust and noise created by two motorcycle tracks. We don’t need the additional noise and pollution that will be created by an asphalt and concrete plant. Last year property taxes were raised because the value of land had increased. If his plant is approved the value of our land will decrease but I’m sure our taxes won’t. This project is not good for our area, not good for our valley. Sincerely, Diane and Richard Auser 4/7/23, 12:32 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Fwd: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762539577419995447&simpl=msg-f:1762539577419995447 1/2 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Fwd: 1 message Jeff Hinman <jeff@videovisioninc.com>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 11:31 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Cc: Andrew.Byron@wyoleg.gov, Dan.Dockstader@wyoleg.gov ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jeff Hinman <jeff@videovisioninc.com> Date: Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 11:17 AM Subject: To: Jeff Hinman <jeff@videovisioninc.com> Commissioners' I'm voicing my extreme concerns about an application for a hot mix ashphalt plant, concrete batch plant and huge expansion of an existing gravel pit near my home. While I see you only had to notify properties within 300 feet the health and environmental hazards of this proposed project affect the entire valley. The toxic and know carcinogens coming from the exhaust materials will blow far from the 300 ft. This is a clear health and safety hazard to hundreds of homes, families and their children. Also there will be considerable damage and danger to the water supply from which we drink! This area is now subdivided into many homesites as well for future families. This usage is clearly not consistent with the neighborhood as it stands now and going forward. And the notion they propose a 24/7 work facility producing cancer causing fumes is even more hazardous. This is a disaster for the entire valley! I respectfully ask that these expansions are denied. I am including some files from independent scientific organizations that prove the toxic health hazards this would cause. Here is a short snippet of just the known hazards from the exhaust! Understand the Danger of VOCs Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are particles of dangerous substances emitted into the air after certain chemical reactions. They vaporize at room temperature, so they stay airborne indefinitely. Asphalt plants emit significant amounts of these gases, and living next to such plants can be hazardous to your health. Other issues associated with overexposure to VOC emissions are: Headache or loss of concentration 4/7/23, 12:32 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Fwd: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762539577419995447&simpl=msg-f:1762539577419995447 2/2 Nausea Nose, throat, and eyes irritation Damage to the kidneys, liver, and lungs Dizziness and fatigue Here is a link to a study done in New Jersey. It has many other references as well https://www.co.wright.mn.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/6844?fileID=14104#:~:text=Breathing%20Asphalt%20fumes% 20can%20irritate,and%2For%20shortness%20of%20breath.&text=Contact%20can%20irritate% 20and%20cause,%2C%20dizziness%2C%20nausea%20and%20vomiting. This link has a number of links to specific info from the EPA, CDC etc. showing the contents of the fumes and all the carcinogens being put into the air. There is also a great deal of mention about the property values being damaged by as much as 56% Is the county prepared to make up the difference to us in yearly payments! Is the county prepared to deal with the illness's to the valley residents from these toxic fumes and groundwater damages. Is the county prepared to mitigate the dangers from all the increased heavy truck traffic and the inevitable death of children from the toxic waste or that truck that runs them over on their bikes. This company needs to find another place to do this on a much larger parcel of ground away from residential areas. Thank you, Jeff Hinman Asphalt-Plants-PUB-1311.pdf 5213K 4/7/23, 10:16 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Opposed! https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762532413049410415&simpl=msg-f:176253241304941041…1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Opposed! 2 messages etna girl <etnagirlwy@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 9:38 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov I oppose the Sunroc Corporation plant in Etna. Thank You Laurie Palmer Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:16 AM To: etna girl <etnagirlwy@gmail.com> Cc: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Ms. Palmer, Thank you for your response. I will include this email in the report packet to be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and presented on April 19, 2023 Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] 4/7/23, 10:23 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corp Expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762523130233795843&simpl=msg-f:1762523130233795843 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corp Expansion 2 messages Willard Ceccarelli <wceccarelli@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 7:10 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov File NO. 103 CUP 23 Please consider this email as my voice. I am absolutely not in favor of this expansion. Please consider my request. -- Willard Ceccarelli wceccarelli@gmail.com Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:23 AM Draft To: Willard Ceccarelli <wceccarelli@gmail.com> Cc: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Mr. Ceccarelli, Thank you for your response. I will include this email in the report packet to be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and presented on April 19, 2023. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] 4/9/23, 4:18 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762554165483055465&simpl=msg-f:1762554165483055465 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit 1 message 'Esther Leslie' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 3:23 PM Reply-To: Esther Leslie <polyestherat90@yahoo.com> To: "planning@lincolncountywy.gov" <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> APPLICANT: Sunroc Corporation FILE No. 103 CUP 23 COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Etna PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit I just became aware of the proposed expansion of Sunroc Corporation's business to include a hot mix plant and a concrete plant. I live in Nordic Ranches and the prevailing winds would blow the smell and the smoke through our neighborhood. I know that there are homes right next to their proposed area of expansion and many more between us and them. I oppose the proposal. 4/10/23, 12:00 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Concrete asphalt plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762807852523088850&simpl=msg-f:1762807852523088850 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Concrete asphalt plant 1 message 'gary smith' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:35 AM Reply-To: gary smith <gsmittys@icloud.com> To: Planning@lincolncountywy.gov I a a home owner in Nordic Ranches and I am voting against having a concrete asphalt plant in the Etna area. One of the reasons it’s so nice in the Etna area is that it is quiet and a 24/7 plant will disturb that and also will devalue my home. My vote is to find somewhere else in all the surrounding areas that do not disturb residents of Lincoln County. Sent from my iPhone 4/9/23, 3:50 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762655046697519200&simpl=msg-f:1762655046697519200 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit 1 message Hannah Alessandria <h.alessandria1@gmail.com>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 6:07 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To Whom it May concern, Though I am not a resident of Etna, I am a resident of Star Valley, and I am very concerned with the plan to put ANOTHER gravel pit operation in the Valley. As a part time resident in Alpine, where we already have a gravel pit, I can tell you the side effects are many. The dust is a guarantee with an operation like this, which can not only clog up residents A/C systems as well as other ventilation systems, but also degrade the air quality and create associated health effects, resulting from airborne emissions. The mining and crushing of gravel creates and releases fine particulate matter called Crystalline Silica into the air which will be carried by wind toward homes and schools. These particles get into the lungs and can cause Silicosis and lung cancer. Also the noxious weeds in this valley are propagated by disturbing the soil, there is no way to guarantee that the gravel and topsoil created from this plant will be noxious weed free. I'd honestly like to know what the gravel pit in Alpine is required to do to prevent contaminants getting into the water. With the reservoir as low as it has been, you can clearly see that the water in the pools behind the existing plant has reduced quality. How will this continue to affect our rivers and waterways? Also as someone who works in construction, I can tell you that this WILL be a loud business. Sifting gravel from dirt is not quiet, therefore disturbing the peace of all the residents in the area. I read " a full 10 acres will be reclaimed at finish of operation." But there is no "finish" date, therefore this could be a permanent structure of 10 years or more? Most pits and quarries are not properly rehabilitated. This is not an "interim" land use. The landscape and species of all kinds endure permanent negative impacts. I think the approval of the gravel pit needs to be reconsidered. It will not only be an eyesore but also a huge detriment to the residents health and property values. We are so blessed to live in such a beautiful place that provides us with a magnificent amount of nature and species. Please do ruin our beautiful Valley. Hannah 4/9/23, 4:20 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Comment for Project Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762548014211999269&simpl=msg-f:1762548014211999269 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Comment for Project Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit 1 message 'Holly Sinclair' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 1:46 PM Reply-To: Holly Sinclair <hskidoo@yahoo.com> To: "planning@lincolncountywy.gov" <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>, "jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov" <jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov>, "kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov" <kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov>, "teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov" <teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov> Good afternoon, I would like to ask the Planning Committee and the County Commissioners to please not allow the expansion of the gravel pit in Etna. This would be devastating to our growth as a family home community. I myself live in Etna and am not far from that pit. I would rather see the land be more family homes for the lack of affordable housing in the valley. There are to many unknowns in this CUP. Have we looked at the environmental impact and the health risks? We definitely need more information and studies. What is the recommended distance from the EPA for residential homes? Is this company in good standing with the EPA? Last question to ask yourselves is, would you want to live next to an Asphalt or Batch Plant? This is in reference to Applicant: Sunroc Corporation File NO: 103 CUP 23 Community Plan Area: Etna Project Name: Sunroc CorporationExpansion of Existing Gravel Pit Thank you for your time, Holly Sinclair 27 Pinto Lane Etna WY 4/19/23, 8:20 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Etna asphalt plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762988488750542742&simpl=msg-f:1762988488750542742 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Etna asphalt plant 1 message 'HOLLY STROTH' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 10:27 AM Reply-To: HOLLY STROTH <strothouse@aol.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Dear Planning Department, You’re supposed to be representing the people of the Valley and be concerned for our well being and home values. By approving of this plant you will create noise and air pollution in our beautiful Star Valley, not to mention light pollution…..will we even be able to see the stars anymore?! I beg of you to look at the big picture here, this is not a long term benefit to our community. Please vote NO to this plant and put your constituents first! Sincerely, Holly Stroth 244 Hillside Way Star Valley Ranch Sent from my iPad 4/9/23, 3:26 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - File No. 103 CUP 23 Sunroc Corp Expansion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762708581355521896&simpl=msg-f:1762708581355521896 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> File No. 103 CUP 23 Sunroc Corp Expansion 1 message Jenni Sireci <jenni@bettermondaysinc.com>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 8:18 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To whom it may concern, I would like to oppose the application for Sunroc Corporation's expansion of their existing gravel pit in Etna.  Etna is not the rural area it once was.  The community has grown significantly over the past five years.  We even have our own hair salon and restaurant now! I live at 303 Good Neighbor Lane in Etna.  My dog sitter lives right next to this land being proposed for expansion and my home is only 3 miles away.  I do not want my family or pets to be exposed to the harm from this expansion.  There is land further south away from community centers, restaurants, homes and parks that would be safer for them to use for this expansion.  Thank you for your time and consideration.  All the best, Jenni Jenni Sireci  |  Better Mondays, Inc.  |  P.O. Box 6889  |  Jackson, WY  83002  |  Ph: 307.699.1037   4/19/23, 8:32 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762803262650332297&simpl=msg-f:176280326265033229…1/4 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc CUP application 4 messages Jennifer Anderson <jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:23 AM To: robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov Dear Mr. Davis and Planning & Zoning Board, We are direct neighbors of the Sunroc gravel pit in Etna. Thank you for nofying us of the April 19th meeng; we will try to be there. Also thank you for not scheduling this meeng unl the applicant submied a more sufficient applicaon. Just a lile bit of history: We purchased our property in the Rocky Mountain S/D in 2003 right aer it was plaed, from the Robinson Family, who at that me also owned the gravel pit. We immediately built our home. The Robinsons pit was considered grandfathered at that me. The acvity in the pit was minimal then with the disturbance total around 3 acres. There was barely any truck traffic. In 2008, the Robinsons obtained a Condional Use Permit for an expansion. They were permied to expand to 10 acres, which also coincided with the state DEQ permit allowance of 10 acres. I believe the regulaons in place at that me did not allow for such a use adjoining a residenal subdivision, but since the gravel pit was grandfathered AND the Robinsons also created our subdivision, the County placed the 1000-foot separaon distance condion between any homes and the gravel pit (measured from the gravel pit to exisng homes rather than just the rock crusher). The Commissioners and neighbors were very adamant at that me that no hot mix plant would ever be permied here resulng in a CUP condion. With an approved permit, the status of the pit changed from a grandfathered use to a permied use; therefore, any allowances given to a grandfathered use went away. At that me, we obviously wished there was never any expansion, but we knowingly bought next to a gravel operaon and accepted it as long as the owners/operators were good neighbors and followed the condions of approval. For the following years, we had no issues, and the acvity/traffic was again, very minimal. We relied on the 2008 CUP and its condions and had no issues for several years. They included: 1. This permit is to operate the uses outlined in the project descripon. Any new uses of the site or expansion of the presently approved use will require a revised or new permit prior to the new use beginning. 2. Copies of the permits received from the Wyoming Dept. of Environmental Quality shall be submied to the Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development. 3. Lincoln County Weed & Pest shall cerfy the gravel is weed free and does not contain seeds which will promote noxious weeds. 4. Applicant will maintain 1000 feet of separaon from any exisng home, unless home owner(s) give wrien permission (copy to be submied to the County). The distance will be measured from the project boundary of the gravel pit to the exisng home(s). 5. Access permits shall be obtained from Wyoming Dept of Transportaon if necessary. 6. Crushing operaon will only be allowed from 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday through Friday, no weekends. 7. Dust abatement on the road will be completed a minimum of once per season, with road maintenance as needed as used by the pit operator during the use of the pit. 8. No hot mix plant will be allowed. 9. Upgrades to the road, including the reasonable access over the canal will be completed by the applicants from the pit entrance to US HWY 89. 4/19/23, 8:32 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762803262650332297&simpl=msg-f:176280326265033229…2/4 10. A berm will be created and maintained along the south boundary with allowance for 60 feet of access opening to the pit. 11. Topsoil and waste rock will connue to be pushed along the east boundary of the pit creang a berm. In 2013, DEQ changed their permits allowing a Limited Mining Permit to be 15 acres rather than 10 acres - the County Regulaons followed soon aer allowing for 15 acres. There was no change to the 2008 CUP and is sll limited to 10 acres total. About 6 years ago, the property was sold to DePatco/Stoddard Brothers. At that me, they submied a new CUP applicaon to the County for another expansion. I can't recall if a hot mix plant was also included. If it was, it was pulled off the table at some point during the review process. The project was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission, but the applicant withdrew before going in front of the Board of Commissioners. The applicant was working with us to make changes to the canal crossing - making it wider and adding rip rap to either side and some road maintenance maers. Since the applicaon was never approved, no changes to the roadway or canal crossing were ever completed. We only recently learned of Sunroc's purchase of the pit. I see from the warranty deed that they have owned it since 2020. The acvity has been minimal for the last 5 years. There has been no road maintenance, specifically no dust abatement in the last 2-3 years. 2 summers ago, I can remember 2 large haul trucks geng stuck on the canal crossing. If you are not familiar with Rock Farm Road, there is a narrow and steep culvert crossing with an immediate 90-degree turn on the east side. I get somewhat anxious about trucks geng stuck for any amount of me, as this is our only access to the highway. I am also doubul of any weed control/spraying in the fields, as we are adamant with our spraying and see a lot of Canadian Thistle and Black Henbane on the subject property. Regarding the current applicaon: Size/Setbacks. The applicant wants to change from the current CUP's 10-acre limitaon to being able to mine 27.5 acres. This would change its status from a Limited Mining Permit to a Small Mining Permit with both the County and DEQ. It would allow them to mine 10-acres of land in any one year. This would eventually obliterate the 1000' setback originally required by the current CUP as they are proposing to be 300' from a residenal subdivision. While the current regulaons have only a 300-foot setback for a limited mining use, it also is not allowed in the Rural zone to adjoin an exisng residenal subdivision unless the mining operaon was permied prior to a subdivision plat being filed. Also, the Batch Plant and/or Rock Crusher uses are not permied on land adjoining to an exisng residenal subdivision unless the operaon was permied prior to the plat be filed. Yes, the gravel pit use was in use before our subdivision was plaed; however, the use was limited and furthermore restricted when approved for the 2008 CUP. I beg the queson that when asking for an expansion of any type, especially as big as this one, the applicant should not be permied to go any closer to the residenal subdivisions, unless permission from the affected neighbors is given. Since the 2008 CUP approval, there is actually a new residenal subdivision, Lazy A Ranch, 2nd Filing, adjacent to the northeast. I understand that there is a new residenal subdivision that has been approved by the County to the southwest that while not adjoining, is within 300’ of the subject property. At the very least, the addion of new uses – hot mix and concrete batch plant - would not be permied a Chapter 6.8.B.1.a. does not allow this use adjoining an exisng residenal subdivision unless the operaon was permied prior to a subdivision plat being filed. While the extracon/processing and rock crusher uses were pre-exisng, a hot mix/batch plant use IS NOT and needs to follow the regulaons. Allowing expansion of this size will certainly reduce our property values as well as our enjoyment of our property. We respecully are opposed to any development or disturbance within 1000-feet of our homes as promised in the 2008 CUP. The proposed batch plant and hot mix plant is a NEW use. · Access. As menoned previously, the canal crossing is an issue. The applicaon states that the road from the pit entrance to the highway would be brought up to County Subdivision standards. Please note that half of the current applicaon is a copy of subdivision regulaons from MONTANA and have no bearing on thisapplicaon. If any type of expansion or new uses be approved with this applicaon, I would hope that the road is upgraded and the canal crossing re-designed for safe truck access. In all reality, I would think that canal crossing upgrades should be needed to run a safe operaon under the current permit. 4/19/23, 8:32 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762803262650332297&simpl=msg-f:176280326265033229…3/4 · Hot Mix/Concrete Batch Plants. The Land Use Regulaons state that for a new Batch Plant and/or RockCrusher, the use is not allowed when the site is adjoining exisng residenal subdivisions unless theoperaon was permied prior to a subdivision plat being filed. Yes, the gravel extracon site and rockcrusher use was in existence prior to our subdivision plat being filed and were considered as a grandfathereduse (now permied); however, a batch plant use is a completely NEW use that needs to comply with theregulaons. It is our opinion that a batch plant use would NOT be permied by the current regulaons. Furthermore, we were given assurances by the Board of County Commissioner in 2008 that NO HOT MIXPLANT would be allowed at this site. This gave us the confidence to develop our property by adding aguesthouse and shop and make it a home. Had we have not goen this assurance, I am not sure we would sll be at this locaon. It would not be right to abandon this condion moving forward. · Hours of Operaon. The current CUP allows for 8am-5pm, Monday through Friday. The current applicaon proposes 7am-6pm, Monday through Friday, with the allowance for “extraordinary hours,” where they may obtain a County/State/Federal project where they could use the property 24-hours, 7 days a week. We would respecully ask that the current hours of operaon are maintained should any changes be approved. · Truck Traffic. Traffic has been limited since the development on our property in 2004. This applicaon states that with the expansion and hot mix/batch plant uses, a total of 1145 trucks per month is proposed. This is a crazy expansion for this small gravel road and the neighborhood. · Dust Abatement. Spraying the roadway with magwater is required now, but not happening. This needs to be occurring now and connue to be done, regardless of any approvals or amendments to the CUP. · Berms. To address noise and site, berms were originally required. It would be nice if the berms are kept in place AND be maintained in terms of weed control. Vegetang them would help with dust, weeds and be sightlier. We certainly are not opposed to minor expansions to the extracon area if done correctly and condions wereactually kept; however, expansion to within 300-feet of three residenal subdivisions AND the addion of a hot mix plant and concrete batch plant is NOT welcome in this small residenal neighborhood. Just because there was an exisng small, grandfathered gravel operaon years ago, it does not warrant the approval of a large-scaleexpansion, especially when the original owners created a residenal subdivision adjacent to it. We respecully request that the Commission votes to recommend denial to the Board of County Commissioners.We believed in the Commission and Board in 2008 when the first expansion was granted, by placing some strongrestricons on the CUP, maintaining a large disturbance setback to our home and never allowing a hot mix plant. The Regulaons allow for a Temporary Permit for batch plants. Should the applicant have a large-scale projectsuch as a state highway project in the future, this temporary status gives them the right for 120 days, which would sll protect our property rights. Please vote no on this expansion. Should you have addional quesons, we can be reached via email at jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com. Sincerely, Sco and Jennifer Anderson 110 Rock Farm Court, Etna, WY 83118 Jennifer Anderson <jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 6:25 AM To: robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov Dear Mr. Davis, 4/19/23, 8:32 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762803262650332297&simpl=msg-f:176280326265033229…4/4 I was able to review your packet for the Planning & Zoning Commission last night from the website. I was disappointed that our comments dated April 10th regarding the revised Sunroc application were NOT included in the packet. I sent it to this same email address on the morning of the day the comments were due. I also helped my mother Carol Kocher send comments that same afternoon to the same address and hers was included. Can you let me know why? I also understand that my neighbor Julie Johnston made comments and nothing from her was included in the packet. My initial comments from back in February regarding the insufficiencies were included, however, it did not cover our analysis and feelings of the current application. I hope this is remedied prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, possibly by forwarding the comments directly to the commissioners and posting online. Please confirm that this email was received. Sincerely, Jennifer Anderson [Quoted text hidden] -- Jennifer Anderson Jumpin' Jaybird Studio Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 1:38 PM To: Jennifer Anderson <jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>, "suze1953@yahoo.com" <suze1953@yahoo.com>, "tomc@crankco.com" <tomc@crankco.com>, Karen Zahn-Anderson <wyomingkaren@gmail.com>, cjensen@silverstar.com Ms. Anderson, I apologize. I thought I included all of the comments. We received over 40 comments. I wanted to include your comments because you made many substantive points. I will make sure to print your comments and present your points to the Planning and Zoning Committee. They are copied on this email. I did include Carol Kocher's comments. Thank you for the follow-up. Please let me know if you have any questions. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] Jennifer Anderson <jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 1:44 PM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Cc: Karen Zahn-Anderson <wyomingkaren@gmail.com>, cjensen@silverstar.com, "suze1953@yahoo.com" <suze1953@yahoo.com>, "tomc@crankco.com" <tomc@crankco.com> Thank you so much!! I appreciate it. Jennifer [Quoted text hidden] 5/9/23, 3:05 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765432139819342604&simpl=msg-f:1765432139819342604 1/5 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc CUP comments 1 message Jennifer Anderson <jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Tue, May 9, 2023 at 9:47 AM To: jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov, kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov, teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov, Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>, planning@lincolncountywy.gov Lincoln County Office of Planning & Development Board of County Commissioners May 9, 2023 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for requesting additional public comment on this application. We are direct neighbors of the Sunroc gravel pit in Etna. I am hoping that you have already reviewed our previous comments given to the Planning & Zoning Commission so I will try not repeat that here. I apologize for its length, but with a proposal like this, there is a lot of information you need before making a decision. We think the P&Z did a great job in listening to the community’s concerns. We want to address the 3 Sunroc requests, which the P&Z recommended denial in all. Hot Mix Plant and Concrete Batch Plant In 2008, when the Robinson Family requested and obtained a CUP for the expansion of the gravel pit, which also allowed a rock crusher, the Board adamantly stated and placed a condition on the permit, that NO hot mix plant would be allowed at this site. We were given assurances by the Board of County Commissioners in 2008 giving us the confidence to develop our property by adding a guesthouse and shop and making it a home. Had we not gotten this assurance, I am not sure we would still be at this location. It would not be right to abandon this condition moving forward. We ask how many hot mix and batch plants does Star Valley need? By our count, there are 12 gravel pit or concrete/hot mix operations – many that are grandfathered for hot mix or batch plant but do not necessarily have one…YET. If batch plants were truly needed, why haven’t other operations added it where they have already been approved or grandfathered? While we were unable to find permits or statuses online, we were able to gather information from contractors and put together this list to the best of our ability: General Area Common name/owner Uses Alpine Naef/SUNROC Gravel, concrete, asphalt Alpine to Etna Evans Gravel, crusher, asphalt, concrete Etna Sunroc Gravel, crusher Etna to Thayne Rocky Top/Reinhart Gravel, crusher Etna to Thayne Calls Concrete Etna to Thayne Jenkins/HK Gravel, asphalt Etna to Thayne Cedar Creek/Avail Gravel, asphalt Etna to Thayne Hebdon Gravel Thayne to Afton Area Beford/Strawberry/Avail Gravel, concrete, asphalt Thayne to Afton Area Rocky Top/Avail Gravel, asphalt Thayne to Afton Area Dry Creek/Avail Gravel, asphalt Thayne to Afton Area Peavlers Gravel 5/9/23, 3:05 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765432139819342604&simpl=msg-f:1765432139819342604 2/5 This list does not include the WYDOT site in Alpine, which has an asphalt plant operated by Avail for highway projects. Do we really need another asphalt or concrete batch approval in our immediate area? Do we need this on a small 40-acre parcel that is surrounded by residential uses? No. For a Conditional Use approval, you must make the findings that the use is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The introductory page states the need to protect personal property rights. “Regulation of land use is a balancing act between the rights of the individual to develop a lot or parcel of land and the rights of the community to protect itself from the negative effects of poor development.” Adding a hot mix plant and concrete batch plant surrounded by residential uses is poor planning. The purpose of the Rural zone is to maintain the rural character and allows for commercial uses that have a low impact on the neighbors. Hot mix and batch plants are not LOW impact. These uses will have constant traffic: applicant proposes up to 666 trucks per month or 1332 truck trips per month in addition to the gravel/crusher use…that equates to 6 trips per hour for just hot mix and concrete uses. Does this sound like a good mix with residential use on a private roadway? No. Being an adjacent neighbor, we do not want to see, hear, or smell fumes/smoke associated with these uses. Both staff and the P&Z Commission found that these uses are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and recommended denial. Please follow their recommendation. Gravel Pit Expansion After the P&Z meeting, I spoke with Mr. Austin Dunlap in the County Attorney’s Office. Staff have been calling this pit a nonconformity and cited the findings for nonconforming use. My main question was if this gravel operation on this property is a grandfathered or nonconforming use? This makes a difference when determining 1) how to review the application, 2) what findings the Commission need to make to either deny or approve, and 3) how Sunroc could proceed on this property. My biggest fear is point #3. Mr. Dunlap had cited a Wyoming Supreme Court case regarding a grandfathered gravel operation and the Doctrine of Diminishing Assets. I was actually very involved in that particular case in Teton County (Roger Seheer-Thoss v Teton County) as I was the Code Enforcement Officer for the Planning & Building Department. Here’s my concern: RST was a legal nonconforming use AND had no type of County Permit (Special Use Permit is required for gravel operations in Teton County). As you are probably familiar with, State Statute allows a grandfathered use to continue even if the County adopts regulations that would not permit the use; however, the local jurisdiction cannot require the owner to go through the County permitting process in order to continue – only if the use is expanded. So, RST did not have a County permit (DEQ Limited Mining Permits still applied) and expanded in size over time. The County tried to restrain RST to the original size, but the State ruled that RST could expand based on the Doctrine of Diminishing Assets showing that: (1) excavation activities were actively pursued when a zoning ordinance became effective, (2) the area to be excavated was clearly intended to be excavated, as measured by objective manifestations, and (3) the continued operations had no substantially different and adverse impact on the neighborhood. Teton County lost and now has NO control over the operation, meaning no way of conditioning road improvements, weed requirements, separation distances, etc. as they could with a Special or Conditional Use Permit. The neighbors had no recourse and RST only abides by DEQ standards, which are very basic. Two big differences between the RST property and Sunroc is (1) the size of property (RST 270 acres/Sunroc 40 acres), and (2) Sunroc has a CUP in hand for a 10 acre pit. In my opinion, the Sunroc property is NOT a nonconformity as they have a Conditional Use Permit in hand nor could they meet #2 or #3 of the three- prong test above. The previous owners, when requesting a CUP for 10 acres, most certainly measured the area to be excavated AND the proposal would substantially impact the immediate neighborhood in terms of more truck traffic, noise, dust and unsightliness. If the County continues to consider this a nonconformity – that does have a permit, I think the past few years of their operation need to be reviewed very closely. Section 1.6.D. under Nonconforming Uses states: D. Whenever a non-conforming use of land, buildings or structures has been intentionally discontinued for a period of thirty-six (36) months the use shall be deemed terminated. Use of the premises thereafter shall be in conformity with the zone and applicable project standards. 5/9/23, 3:05 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765432139819342604&simpl=msg-f:1765432139819342604 3/5 I requested the Limited Mining Permit (0566ET) Annual Reports from the Wyoming DEQ since the Robinsons obtained the CUP in 2008. My findings show that there has been NO new disturbed acreage, no minerals removed from the pit, no new overburden stockpiled onsite, and no new topsoil stockpiled onsite for the past 4 years. (Numbers reported are for the previous year’s work.) Annual Report Year (reporting for previous year) Owner Acreage Reported Minerals in Cubic Yard/Tons removed *   2008 Robinson 1 ac new /4 ac total 21609 cy/34852 tons 2009 Robinson 2 ac new /6 ac total 11747 cy/18947 tons 2010 Robinson 1 ac new/7 ac total 29304 cy/estimated 49816 tons 2011 Robinson 0 ac new/7 ac total 1000 cy/estimated 1700 tons 2012 Robinson 0 ac new/6 ac total 0 cy/0 ton 2013 Robinson 0 ac new/6 ac total 0 cy/0 ton 2014 NO REPORT ON FILE 2015 Robinson 0 ac new/6 ac total 3500 cy/945 tons 2016 Depatco 0 ac new/10 ac total Estimated 23871 cy/40581 tons 2017 NO REPORT ON FILE 2018 Depatco 0 ac new/10 ac total Estimated 341 cy/ 581 ton 2019 Depatco 0 ac new/10 ac total Estimated 10173 cy/ 17295 ton 2020 Depatco 0 ac new/10 ac total 0 cy/0 ton 2021 Sunroc 0 ac new/10.5 ac total 0 cy/0 ton 2022 Sunroc 0 ac new/10.5 ac total 0 cy/0 ton 2023 Sunroc 0 ac new/10.5 ac total 0 cy/0 ton *Where only cubic yards were reported, I estimated the tons and vice versa for comparison purposes. JA Does this now mean that the pit is deemed “terminated” by the current County regulations? The applicant wants to change from the CUP's 10-acre limitation to being able to mine 27.5 acres. This would change its status from a Limited Mining Permit to a Small Mining Permit with the County and DEQ. This would eventually obliterate the 1000' setback originally required by the current CUP as they are proposing to be 300' from a residential subdivision. Again, back in 2008 with the first expansion to its current size, the Commissioners placed a condition on the permit: 1. Applicant will maintain 1000 feet of separation from any existing home, unless home owner(s) give written permission (copy to be submitted to the County). The distance will be measured from the project boundary of the gravel pit to the existing home(s). We realize that this was also a standard in the Regulations that has been changed, but it was also agreed upon to obtain the original expansion permit. The Robinsons owned the pit at that time AND created our subdivision AND sold the land around the pit for residential uses. We all know that we bought next to a gravel pit, but we also knew that the Robinsons hurt their chances of ever doing anything more than 10 acres given they created the subdivision and sold land, promising their buyers that there would never be an expansion. This distance was agreed upon as a compromise because of the residential uses surrounding the pit. Again, we developed our property based upon the fact that we would never see the gravel pit come any closer than 1000’ from our home. If this was a new use, they could not even apply since it is adjacent to a residential subdivision. They should not be allowed to expand. I heard Mr. Connelly’s comments on the radio last month regarding the application and one of the comments was that the quantity and quality of gravel is more prevalent in this part of the county; that the north end was a “gravel-rich area” that is needed for concrete production. I have heard from several contractors that this pit does not produce high quality gravel and it would be very difficult to meet state specifications for road base because of the clay content, nor can it be used for concrete production without major processing. I suspect the owners, past and present, know this and that is why there has not been any substantial activity in 5/9/23, 3:05 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765432139819342604&simpl=msg-f:1765432139819342604 4/5 this pit for many years. Why disturb neighbors if the gravel quality is so poor? The Comprehensive Plan on the introductory page states “Provide information which will promote good land use decisions.” Can the applicant prove that the rest of the property has good quality product, or must they dig the entire property only to leave a scar that lasts forever because nobody wants the product? It is a given that gravel pits do not last forever…maybe it’s time to admit that this site is done. In going forward, you can certainly see that with the minimal activity of the site since the first expansion AND the non-existent use of the site in recent years, how starting the operation back up with the possibility of mining 27 acres to within 300’ of our property, a tremendous amount of traffic, and what comes from more traffic – more back up beepers and more dust, this is a huge impact on surrounding uses and is a complete nuisance. It will not be a “low impact” use in the Rural zone. Let’s go back to traffic – just for the gravel pit/crusher. The applicant is proposing 480 trucks or 960 trips down our private gravel road. That equates to a truck trip every 15 minutes if the applicant gets the operational hours they want or one truck every 11 minutes under the current allowed hours of operation. This is a residential road! We have kids and grandkids riding bikes on this road; kids walk from the bus stop at the highway; neighbors ride horses and walk dogs. Haul trucks every few minutes are incompatible and inappropriate. Additionally, the East Canal crossing has proven in the past to be an issue with haul trucks as many have gotten stuck in the past…this is our only exit. With the number of trucks proposed, this crossing will be a huge problem and scares us. The applicant is proposing longer hours. The current CUP conditioned the hours to 8am-5pm. The applicant is proposing 7am- 6pm. I for one work from home. I am now going to hear the operation starting at 7am? I can hear back-up beepers from trucks from within the pit. On a good day, I can even hear back-up beepers from the highway. The applicant is proposing to move those trucks 700’ closer now? Being only 300’ from my property will be unbearable during the summer months. Staff and the P&Z Commission made the findings that a hot mix/batch plant use is not appropriate in this location because of the surrounding residential uses and that the proposed use is a heavy industrial use. Why would the gravel aspect of this application be any different? It too is clearly a heavy industrial use with a rock crusher, heavy equipment, haul trucks and such heavy truck traffic. The expansion must make the CUP findings: a. The conditional use is consistent with the standards of these Land Use Regulations and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. b. The conditional use will not substantially impair the appropriate use of the neighboring property; and will serve the public need, convenience and welfare. c. The conditional use is designed to be compatible with adjacent land uses and the area of its location. The proposed use is NOT consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the Rural zoning district as stated above. The proposed use WILL impact the surrounding properties in terms of traffic, noise, dust and just being an eyesore. As shown, there are several other options in Star Valley for gravel, concrete and asphalt. The proposed use is NOT compatible with the adjacent lands as it is a heavy industrial use in the middle of residential uses. Lastly, what happens to the neighborhoods’ property values? They are going to decrease substantially…who in their right mind is going to buy my property with a gravel pit 300’ from the backdoor? We were given assurances in 2008 that there would never be a hot mix plant AND that the operation would never be closer than 1000’ from our house without our permission. The proposal needs to be held to the current permit’s conditions. Lastly, I call into question the existing CUP granted in 2008. Here’s what has occurred: · Per the DEQ Annual Report, the size of the current disturbance is 10.5 acres where 10 acres is allowed. I know it sounds minimal, but what happens when the 300’ proposal is off just a little bit? Who is penalized? The neighbors. · Per the Public Records Request, it appears that reports are missing. Has the County ever followed up with DEQ through the years to ensure compliance? Or as part of this review process? We did not see any evidence of communication with DEQ on the current operation and how it has/or has not been in compliance with state regulations. · Weeds! This property is littered with invasive weeds. The neighbors are adamant about spraying. In fact, we have sprayed into the subject property when under previous ownership to try to control growth. Our efforts are worthless if the surrounding properties don’t also spray. Has there been a review of the current proposal by County Weed & Pest? Again, we haven’t seen any comments from this agency since the original review of the 2008 permit. 5/9/23, 3:05 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP comments https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765432139819342604&simpl=msg-f:1765432139819342604 5/5 · Dust abatement has not occurred for many years. Previous owners occasionally sprayed the roadway with magwater once a summer. But in all reality, it is ignored. Additionally, on windy days, the dust rolls off the stockpiles and “berms” around the pit across the field. Pit owners never know this since there is hardly anyone there to witness. The berms are really just stockpiled material infested with weeds. · Upgrades to the road have never happened. It is the same roadway. It is the same culvert crossing that the homeowners paid for personally before the 2008 expansion. Given the above issues over the years, could the current CUP be revoked? Or at least obeyed or enforced? If expansion is approved, WHO is going to enforce Staff’s 23 recommended conditions? No doubt it will be the neighbors. Perhaps if a proposal needs that many conditions in order to approve it, it shouldn’t be approved at all. We have already spent hours and hours researching the regulations, talking with the state and county staff, discussing with neighbors and writing comments…I for one don’t want to have to spend more time enforcing the county permits. Lastly, I know the Commissioners are always in favor of neighbor cooperation, but where has Sunroc been since acquiring the property and requesting expansion? As of today, we have never been approached by any representative of the company. Sunroc hasn’t shown any good faith towards neighbors such as weed control, dust abatement, road maintenance, etc. since acquiring the property. Nothing. I keep telling myself that Sunroc did not “buy” this site specifically for the content or potential. Sunroc bought out Depatco as a whole, and just acquired these 40 acres as part of the deal. This is not a good site for quality material nor for good relations with the neighbors. I hope that with this process and hearing all the issues, Sunroc decides that it is time for the gravel pit to finish out the 10 acres it’s permitted for or just go away. With a lengthy list of recommended conditions by Staff, is Sunroc going to have a manager overseeing this operation day-to-day? Or will it just get lost as it is managed from another state? The Conditional Use Permit can be a useful tool for uses that may be great on a property not given an outright allowance but may be appropriate because of topography or property size or distance from other uses. Thankfully with a CUP, the regulations minimums do not have to be approved – like 300’ from a property line – and that neighbors are a part of the conversation AND given consideration. But I honestly distrust the CUP process because it means that neighbors must trust the County to make the right decisions on a use. Please step into our shoes, walk our road with our kids and eat on our back porches…our neighborhood and our community does not need any of this proposal. Please vote no to a hot mix plant or concrete batch plant AND no to this expansion. It is time that the use plays out and comes to an end. Should you have additional questions, we can be reached via email at jennifer@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com. Sincerely, Scott and Jennifer Anderson 110 Rock Farm Court, Etna 4/7/23, 11:05 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application Etna https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1757095694669877213&simpl=msg-f:175709569466987721…1/3 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc CUP application Etna 4 messages Jennifer Kocher-Anderson <info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:23 AM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Dear Mr. Davis and members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, Thank you for notifying us of the Sunroc CUP application. We are neighbors directly east of the subject property and we have lived here for 19 years as the first residents of the Rocky Mountain Subdivision. The subdivision was platted by the Robinson family, who at that time also owned the gravel pit. As first time homeowners we were aware of the pit and the operations, which were minimal at that time...and still are. We were one of the involved neighbors at the time the Robinsons applied for and received the CUP in 2008. At that time the Land Use Regulations required a 1000' separation distance for gravel operations and it was further conditioned on the permit to protect surrounding homes. The CUP approved a rock crusher, but the Board of County Commissioners were adamant that this site would never be used as a hot mix plant. That too was conditioned on the CUP. While we have no issues with a small expansion of the gravel extraction area, we do have many concerns with not only the insufficiency of their application, but with the proposal of a hot mix and concrete batch plant. Regarding the gravel extraction area, a simple map was submitted with the current gravel operation 10-acre boundary and a 15-acre boundary that would be permitted by the DEQ permitting process. However, we are unclear if the applicant is proposing to expand to the 15-acre area or wants the ability to mine the entire parcel as the cover letter is the only clue as to what the applicant is requesting through this application: This is a pretty general request with no supporting documentation. At the very minimum, a map with measurements to the surrounding homes should be required. We have not signed off on a lesser setback from any part of the operation at this time. The Land Use Regulations state that for a Batch Plant and/or Rock Crusher, the use is not allowed when the site is adjoining existing residential subdivisions unless the operation was permitted prior to a subdivision plat being filed. Yes, the gravel extraction site and rock crusher use was in existence prior to our subdivision plat being filed and we consider these as a grandfathered use; however, a batch plant use is a completely NEW use that needs to comply with the regulations. It is our opinion that a batch plant use would NOT be permitted by the current regulations. Additionally, the use of a batch plant would not be allowed within 1000' of existing homes. I have not seen a map yet with a proposed placement of equipment or a distance to my house. Other items that would be of major concern but not addressed by the applicant would include hours of operation, number of trucks they expect, noise abatement, or if hazardous materials will be stored on site? For an application for a gravel pit, the regulations state that the following items are to be submitted WITH the application to the county: -Reclamation Plan. What the applicant submitted was a copy of the 2008 permit reclamation plan notes to DEQ. Rather than be a condition of a permit, it should be submitted prior to any meeting or vote. -Weed & Pest certification. -Dust Control Plan. The 2008 CUP required that dust abatement to the roadway occur at a minimum once a year. This actually does not occur now. In the last 10 years, it has been dust guarded maybe 3 or 4 times. -Access documentation. It would be helpful for the County Engineer to reassess the access over the canal as last summer semi haulers were stuck as they almost went over the side of the canal crossing twice last summer. 4/7/23, 11:05 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application Etna https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1757095694669877213&simpl=msg-f:175709569466987721…2/3 -Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. There really are no details from the applicant regarding a hot mix or concrete batch plant other than a basic request in the cover letter to the County. Without more details, it is really hard to make comments or to address our concerns. Honestly, we didn't think anyone would ever propose this use since the current Conditional Use Permit did not allow it and the Commissioners were so adamant in 2008. We understand that the new owners want to use the property to its fullest extent, but our rights and concerns are important too as we are the ones living day to day with the operation. In the last 19 years, not a whole lot has happened in the pit for us to worry about. We see maybe a few weeks each summer with a lot of truck traffic and some noise from a rock crusher, but overall the operation is fairly quiet. If the applicant is proposing to use their entire 40 acres in addition to any type of batch plant, we need assurances that our property values are protected and that there are conditions that protect the enjoyment of our property. We are unfortunately not going to be able to attend the Planning & Zoning meeting as scheduled due to previous plans, but we hope you read our comments and protect the neighboring properties when making a recommendation on this application. Thank you for all that you do. Sincerely, Scott and Jennifer Anderson -- Jennifer Kocher-Anderson Jumpin' Jaybird Studio (307) 690-4235 info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com "Everybody has an artistic feather...perhaps you just haven't found yours yet!  Contact us to help!" Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 1:17 PM To: Jennifer Kocher-Anderson <info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com> Ms. Kocher-Anderson, You are correct in your analysis and I have reached out to the applicant to provide the missing information. I am seeking to have this application amended and postponed until March when all required information has been submitted. Thank you. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] Jennifer Kocher-Anderson <info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 1:46 PM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Hi Robert, Thank you for notifying us of the Sunroc meeting date. The aerial is most helpful. Did they provide any additional information with the map? If yes, could I get a copy forwarded to me? Thank you- Jennifer 4/7/23, 11:05 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc CUP application Etna https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1757095694669877213&simpl=msg-f:175709569466987721…3/3 On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:23 AM Jennifer Kocher-Anderson <info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Jennifer Kocher-Anderson <info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com>Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 1:50 PM To: Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sorry...and if possible could you please forward the site plan that was in the neighbor notice? I wasn't able to read the tiny notes. Thanks- Jennifer On Mon, Feb 6, 2023 at 8:23 AM Jennifer Kocher-Anderson <info@jumpinjaybirdstudio.com> wrote: [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 4/10/23, 12:09 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Etna asphalt and concrete plant. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762800325312863149&simpl=msg-f:1762800325312863149 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Etna asphalt and concrete plant. 1 message 'Jim Volin' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:36 AM Reply-To: Jim Volin <j_volin@yahoo.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov, etna.coalition@gmail.com I’m sending this message in regards to the proposed asphalt and concrete plant in Etna. I strongly oppose having it. It will be not only an eye sore but as a resident of the area it will be an extremely dangerous to our ground water resources. The plant will also give off a less than pleasant scent that the community will be stuck with. Please protect our beautiful neighborhood and not allow this to happen. 4/10/23, 12:10 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Etna asphalt and concrete plant. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762800325312863149&simpl=msg-f:1762800325312863149 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Etna asphalt and concrete plant. 1 message 'Jim Volin' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 8:36 AM Reply-To: Jim Volin <j_volin@yahoo.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov, etna.coalition@gmail.com I’m sending this message in regards to the proposed asphalt and concrete plant in Etna. I strongly oppose having it. It will be not only an eye sore but as a resident of the area it will be an extremely dangerous to our ground water resources. The plant will also give off a less than pleasant scent that the community will be stuck with. Please protect our beautiful neighborhood and not allow this to happen. 4/9/23, 3:18 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc proposal for a concrete and hot asphalt plant in Etna (FILE No. 103 CUP 23) https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762731474497010687&simpl=msg-f:176273147449701068…1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc proposal for a concrete and hot asphalt plant in Etna (FILE No. 103 CUP 23) 2 messages 'John Harbeck' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 2:18 PM Reply-To: John Harbeck <stohv8@yahoo.com> To: "planning@lincolncountywy.gov" <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> As property owners in the affected area (490 Birch Creek Road, Etna 83118) of this proposed business expansion, we wish to state our opposition to it being permitted. Our taxes last year and our assessment this year have increased drastically, more than 100%. Thus, it seems that we are regarded as living in prime residential space. Now some in Lincoln County (or Utah) would promote the expansion of an annoyingly dusty business in plain view of our house to a smoky and noxious fumed nuisance. There are already enough concrete/asphalt plants in Star Valley to support road construction and similar activities. Why ruin the view and further degrade the environmental experience for which many have selected our area for a residence? You are respectfully requested to deny the permit for what amounts to an enhanced eyesore in a residential area. John and Gail Harbeck 490 Birch Creek Road Etna, WY 83118 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 3:18 PM To: John Harbeck <stohv8@yahoo.com> John and Gail Harbeck, Thank you for your comments. I will include this email in the report packet to be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and presented on April 19, 2023. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 [Quoted text hidden] 4/7/23, 11:01 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Asphalt Plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762208291166477280&simpl=msg-f:1762208291166477280 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Asphalt Plant 2 messages 'Heidi Webb' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM Reply-To: Heidi Webb <hwebb28@yahoo.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Sent from my iPhone Document.docx 14K Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 11:00 AM Draft To: Heidi Webb <hwebb28@yahoo.com> Cc: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Jori and Heidi Webb, Thank you for your response. I will include this email in the report packet to be provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and presented on April 19, 2023. Robert C. Davis, AICP, SMP Planning Director Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development 421 Jefferson St., Ste. 701 Afton, WY 83110 (307) 885-4725 On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 7:46 PM 'Heidi Webb' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> wrote: Sent from my iPhone 4/19/23, 10:06 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Julie Johnston Comments Opposing Depacto Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1763619535820415049&simpl=msg-f:1763619535820415049 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Julie Johnston Comments Opposing Depacto Gravel Pit 1 message xuser@lincolncountywy.gov <xuser@lincolncountywy.gov>Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 9:36 AM Reply-To: xuser@lcwy.org To: robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov Please open the attached document. It was sent to you using a Xerox multifunction printer. Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi-Page Multifunction Printer Location: machine location not set Multifunction Printer Name: Xerox AltaLink C8130 (A0:8B:C5) For more information on Xerox products and solutions, please visit http://www.xerox.com Julie Johnston Comments Opposing Depacto Gravel Pit.pdf 128K 4/11/23, 9:14 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762885882304748718&simpl=msg-f:1762885882304748718 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Asphalt plant 1 message 'Katherine Levin' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 7:16 AM Reply-To: Katherine Levin <katylevin@icloud.com> To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov I live in SVR and oppose the asphalt plant.. This does not belong in our beautiful valley, so close to the Salt River and a very small town. Stop this nonsense now.. Katy Levin 34 Redwood Road Sent from my iPad 4/10/23, 3:26 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Gravel pit negative opinion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762818926637578915&simpl=msg-f:1762818926637578915 1/2 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Gravel pit negative opinion 1 message Lila Wheatley <lwheatley@hawtinjorgensen.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 1:32 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Dear Planning Commission, This email letter is to express concern and negative opinion for the new owners to enlarge & add a batch plant to the gravel pit on Rock Farm Road in Etna. I am against any expansion of the gravel put and any additional uses for the pit to include any asphalt batch plants. I have lived on Rock Farm Road for the last 19 years and have seen the traffic & expansion from the previous owner (DePatco) a few years ago. Reasons for my opinion against the expansion include: 1. Pit expansion & Asphalt plant will ruin quiet enjoyment of a private neighborhood; Children & adults ride horses, bicycles, dirt bikes, 4 wheelers, side by sides, snowmobiles and walk dogs on this road. Additional heavy equipment & Truck traffic will be a safety factor. 2. Current pit has not been highly productive and produces minimal gravel, even with the minimal expansion, it was barely worth the time to expand for the amount of gravel extracted. IT is a high parent of clay. 3. Asphalt plants & produce carcinogens in the air, soil & water in the neighborhood. 4. Current bridge over the Etna Irrigation Canal is not sufficient to carry heavy equipment and added traffic of heavy equipment. This is only bridge in & out from this neighborhood which is a dead end road. The “bridge” consists of a large culvert with some gravel on top and not much for any additional structural support. 5. Decrease in property values for houses & undeveloped land in the neighborhood. 6. Proximity to large neighborhoods; to the North (Nordic Ranches) and to the west, Royal Loop & Roberts-Wolfley Road, extends the carcinogen concerns. Please count my vote as a “no” to Rock Farm Road gravel Pit expansion & additional use for Asphalt batch plant, even if temporary. Sincerely, Lila Wheatley 616 Rock Farm Road Etna, WY 83118 307-690-5218 Lila Wheatley Office Manager Hawtin Jorgensen Architects 265 East Simpson Ave PO Box 1249 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 307-733-4364 lwheatley@hawtinjorgensen.com www.hawtinjorgensen.com 4/10/23, 3:26 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Gravel pit negative opinion https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762818926637578915&simpl=msg-f:1762818926637578915 2/2 4/10/23, 12:15 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Asphalt Plant Proposal https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762756053016239156&simpl=msg-f:1762756053016239156 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Asphalt Plant Proposal 1 message Lynn Vogel <office@naturesgardeninc.com>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 8:52 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov, jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov, kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov, teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov I have no idea how to address a group of extremely limited individuals who hold the health and safety of so many in their hands. I am currently building a home for my family near the proposed site (directly downwind). Most of you have no idea what life bordering an asphalt plant looks like, but I can tell you from experience that it is extremely unpleasant. My family and I have lived near the State's plant, in Alpine, and I am disgusted that Lincoln County would even entertain this idea. I have small children and have already battled cancer once. Please do not make myself or my kids go through this again just for "revenue." You seem to be collecting a fair amount of funds from the lower valley which provides little service. I am extremely disappointed in the leadership in this county and the sideways deals that seem to run rampant. This is why I have copied the Commissioners on this email because they themselves have the power to completely disregard the findings of the planning and zoning commission. I can only hope that you will all set aside your money hungry agenda, and actually consider the people who live here, drink this water, and breathe this air. I can assure you that Sunroc does not give a damn what resources they destroy in search of the almighty dollar, which they probably asked forgiveness for at the dinner table tonight. Happy Easter, Christ is Risen! -- LYNN VOGEL NATURE'S GARDEN PO BOX 8872 JACKSON, WY 83002 307-699-2253 4/9/23, 3:41 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762660637339158907&simpl=msg-f:1762660637339158907 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit 1 message mdivan@wyoming.com <mdivan@wyoming.com>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 7:36 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov RE: APPLICANT: Sunroc Corporation FILE No. 103 CUP 23 COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Etna PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit Dear Lincoln County Planning Department and Commissioners: It is my understand that an asphalt plant is being considered in the above mentioned expansion. Please be advised that as a resident near (and downwind of) this proposed expansion, I am opposed to having a toxic, smelly asphalt plant on said property. One reason I live in this rural Wyoming community is for the fresh, clean air here. An asphalt plant would certainly destroy that. It is bad enough when the farmers and ranchers burn debris in the spring and early summer. And lets not forget that there are inversions in this valley at times. The Salt Lake area frequently has air quality warnings in winter because of inversions and the toxic industrial plants there. It is my opinion that this plant would negatively impact the quality of life we have in this valley, cause health problems for us, (and livestock?), and would reduce our property values. As to the expansion of the gravel pit/rock quarry and possibly a cement plant, I live far enough away from the immediate vicinity of the property that noise would probably not affect me. However I am concerned that noise and dust may impact the people living in close proximity to this property and affect their peace and tranquility with such operations going on. It would be greatly appreciated if you would give your utmost consideration to the residents of this valley over and above any approval of this plan. Thank you, Mary Divan 5/10/23, 9:45 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Fwd: Opposed to proposed Etna Asphalt Plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765470503009176650&simpl=msg-f:1765470503009176650 1/2 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Fwd: Opposed to proposed Etna Asphalt Plant 1 message Kent Connelly <kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov>Tue, May 9, 2023 at 7:57 PM To: Jerry Hansen <jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov>, Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov>, Teri Bowers <teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov> FYI kent ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: ira bradshaw <irawbradshaw@gmail.com> Date: Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:58 AM Subject: Opposed to proposed Etna Asphalt Plant To: <kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov> Dear County Commission Connelly: The purpose of this letter is to unquestionably OPPOSE the construction of an asphalt company, andexpansion of the gravel pit in Etna, Wyoming.  First, the proposed Asphalt Plant in Etna is opposed based on the premise of equity. It is inequitable.Inequitable: Three existing asphalt companies are already operating in the Lower (north) Valley, i.e.Bedford, Freedom, and Thayne. It is INEQUITABLE for another asphalt plant be constructed and operated in the lower valley of Star Valley. If there is a need for additional asphaltcompanies then build the plants in the upper valley, where rich gravel pits are prevalent and noplants currently exist. Additionally, the next section of construction of highway 89 will occurcloser to the upper valley.  Secondly, an asphalt company would be detrimental to the citizens of Etna and the surrounding lower valley communities. Besides it being not equitable, following are a few reasons why the plant isopposed: Zoning: The land is zoned for agricultural, residential acreage with a long-held county exception for storing and processing only sand and gravel. This must not be changed! The residents of Etna are not interested in “development just for development” sake, which only profits the company and county, ruining the lifestyle of hard working people. Health Risk: With asphalt productions comes potential health risks for adults and children, a well-known national fact. Pollution: The pollution, a byproduct of asphalt production, is detrimental to the health of residents living within a 50 mile radius of the site, especially those suffering from respiratory diseases. Residents don’t want to breathe toxic fumes, but rather live in a clean unpolluted air environment. Property Values Decrease: An asphalt company devalues the property value of homes in the vicinity or those under construction or planned to be constructed. Quality of Life: 5/10/23, 9:45 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Fwd: Opposed to proposed Etna Asphalt Plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1765470503009176650&simpl=msg-f:1765470503009176650 2/2 With noxious smells, potential health exposure, noise/uproar of insufferable sounds, unattractiveness and industrial aspect of the asphalt plant, the citizen’s quantity of life takes a huge plunge. Living near an asphalt production or any industrial site is not acceptable to Etna residents who have chosen to live in a clean uncontaminated rural environment.   VOTE for the people of the lower valley not big business, VOTE NO on the proposed asphalt plant in Etna. Respectfully, Nancy Bradshaw. Etna, Wyoming -- Thank you Kent Connelly Lincoln County Commissioner Office: 307.877.2003 Cell: 307.727.8277 4/9/23, 4:01 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762626823309547581&simpl=msg-f:1762626823309547581 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation 1 message Paige Savarese <paigecpa@gmail.com>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 10:38 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Sunroc Corporation File 103 CUP 23 Community Plan Area Etna To Whom It May Concern, It has come to my attention that Sunroc Corporation has submitted an application for expansion of the existing gravel pit on Rock Farm Rd, which would include both asphalt and concrete processing plants. The proposed plants are in the middle of several residential subdivisions and would create harmful toxins to both the air and ground water of the lower valley. My questions to the planning department are: Has the planning department done studies pertaining to the effect on the ground water to the surrounding neighborhoods? Has the planning department done studies pertaining to the effect of air quality to the whole lower valley? With the wind the valley gets the smoke and toxins will be blown throughout the lower valley. Also, Star Valley does not need more smoke in the summer considering the smoke we get almost yearly from forest fires. My questions regarding studies apply to the planning department preparing these studies, not what Sunroc has or will submit to the county. This application is very troubling and the fact that the planning department didn't shut it down immediately is even more troubling. Our government officials should be looking out for the health of the residents of this county, not corporate money. I am requesting you think about your residents first and foremost, not personal financial interests to be gained. -- Thank you, Paige Savarese Paige Savarese, CPA, PC P.O. Box 5275 Etna, WY 83118 307-413-0107 Confidentiality Notice: Unless otherwise obvious from the nature of the transmittal, the information contained in this email is privileged and confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipent, or the employee of agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately reply to the sender by email. Thank you. This notice is required by IRS Circular 230, which regulates written communications about federal tax matters between tax advisors and their clients. To the extent the preceding correspondence and/or any attachment is a written tax advice communication, it is not a full "covered opinion". Accordingly, this advise is not intended and cannot be used for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed by the IRS. 4/10/23, 12:07 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - FILE No. 103 CUP 23 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762804298157753976&simpl=msg-f:1762804298157753976 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> FILE No. 103 CUP 23 1 message Pauline Marie Zeren <filliadei@gmail.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:39 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Cc: Papa - Neal Zeren <nealz@hoytarchitects.design>, "jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov" <jerry.hansen@lincolncountywy.gov>, "kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov" <kent.connelly@lincolncountywy.gov>, "teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov" <teri.bowers@lincolncountywy.gov> Dear Lincoln County Planning Staff, and County Commissioners. We are writing to express opposition to the proposal to expand the existing gravel pit in Etna, including adding concrete and asphalt plants as well as additional mining. The potential benefits to this proposal are unclear, and the negatives are obvious. This project is too big for this location. 30 acres of industrial use do not belong in the heart of Etna, where there is so much potential for affordable, walkable neighborhoods. It does not belong across the street from the elementary school. It does not belong in close proximity to our river without any specified environmental study or remediation process. We understand and support the restrictions that were placed on the original permit, limiting working hours to reasonable times of day, limiting the scale of the operation to a size that is compatible with residential and agricultural neighbors, and most importantly, limiting the environmental impacts to within the bounds of what the County can reasonably enforce. LIncoln County has many resources that outside corporations would happily take from us for their own profit, while investing little in our communities in return. We need to be good stewards of those resources, and not set a precedent here. North Lincoln County already has good representation in the concrete and asphalt buisness, and more jobs than we can fill. It would be a mistake to approve this exceptional permit at this time. Thank you, Pauline and Neal Zeren Etna, WY 4/10/23, 11:54 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Proposed Asphalt Plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762811051872452305&simpl=msg-f:1762811051872452305 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Proposed Asphalt Plant 1 message Richard and Esther Landsverk <ricandest@gmail.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 11:26 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Cc: Richard Landsverk <rjlandsverk@gmail.com> To Lincoln County Office of Planning and Development, We recently learned of your plan to build an asphalt plant near our community off of Highway 89. This was quite a shock considering this is a scenic byway known for its majesc views, clear air, and quiet atmosphere. Placing a plant of this type and size would destroy this community. It will endanger the water, pollute the air, and add constant noise to a quiet residenal community. I recently rered from the United States Air Force aer 24 years of service. We chose this area for the aforemenoned reasons. It would be devastang to have our forever home’s community changed by the addion of this planned plant. There is a significant amount of residenal homes all over this upper valley that will be impacted by this proposed addion. Outdoor acvies will be affected and land values would plummet. We somemes can smell the plant in Freedom if the winds are just right. Adding something just down the road would affect the air quality in the area. Families live here for the outdoor environment and lack of air and water polluon. Byproducts of asphalt could destroy the ground water in this area for the enre community. Hundreds of families depend on well water to sustain themselves. This could potenally contaminate well water and make it undrinkable. What would we do then? Please rethink this plan. There are already plants in place that can be used for the road project. This area is not a rural dump zone; it’s a residenal community and we want to keep it clean and safe. We ask for your compassion while you deliberate about this plan. Thank you. Respectfully, RICHARD “Red” LANDSVERK, Maj (Ret), USAF Etna, WY 83118 CELL: 520-336-7553 “Perfection is not attainable, but if you chase perfection, you will catch excellence!” - Vince Lombardi PastedGraphic-1.tiff 8K 4/9/23, 3:59 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762644773985871079&simpl=msg-f:1762644773985871079 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit 1 message 'Rita Denton' via Planning <planning@lincolncountywy.gov>Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 3:23 PM Reply-To: Rita Denton <mrdenton1541@yahoo.com> To: "planning@lincolncountywy.gov" <planning@lincolncountywy.gov> Ref: APPLICANT: SUNROC CORPORATION FILE: 103 CUP 23 COMMUNITY PLAN AREA: Etna PROJECT NAME: Sunroc Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit To Whom It May Concern: I live in Nordic Ranches, north of the proposed project. I am writing to express my objection to the project being approved. The impact on the community would be extremely detrimental. Respectfully, Rita Denton 4/19/23, 10:05 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Scott and Lou Henderson - opposition to gravel pit https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1763619785586704256&simpl=msg-f:176361978558670425…1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Scott and Lou Henderson - opposition to gravel pit 2 messages xuser@lincolncountywy.gov <xuser@lincolncountywy.gov>Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 9:40 AM Reply-To: xuser@lcwy.org To: robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov Please open the attached document. It was sent to you using a Xerox multifunction printer. Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi-Page Multifunction Printer Location: machine location not set Multifunction Printer Name: Xerox AltaLink C8130 (A0:8B:C5) For more information on Xerox products and solutions, please visit http://www.xerox.com Scott and Lou Henderson - opposition to gravel pit.pdf 485K xuser@lincolncountywy.gov <xuser@lincolncountywy.gov>Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 9:48 AM Reply-To: xuser@lcwy.org To: robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov [Quoted text hidden] Scott and Lou Henderson - opposition to gravel pit.pdf 715K 4/9/23, 4:06 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - opposed to this plant in Etna. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762573285352723847&simpl=msg-f:1762573285352723847 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> opposed to this plant in Etna. 1 message Shelley Miller <shelley.miller10@gmail.com>Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 8:27 PM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov I am 100% opposed to this plant in Etna. Thanks Sent from my iPhone 4/9/23, 3:22 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt factory in Etna https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762720649110318996&simpl=msg-f:1762720649110318996 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Asphalt factory in Etna 1 message Steven Tree <snag626@gmail.com>Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Sir/ma'am, My family and I strongly oppose the proposal to allow and asphalt and concrete factory in Etna; this is a quiet family community, not an industrial area. The sight and smell of the plant would destroy much of what makes Etna a desirable place to live. Please vote against the proposal! Steven Tree Etna, WY 4/10/23, 12:13 PM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - Asphalt plant https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762794271695558818&simpl=msg-f:1762794271695558818 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> Asphalt plant 1 message Summer Casady <summerbcasady@gmail.com>Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 7:00 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov To Whom it May Concern: I am contacting you to inform you of my family's opposition to the proposed hot asphalt pit in Etna. We really appreciate the clean mountain air as we raise our family here in Etna, help us protect it! A hot asphalt pit really does not belong in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, please do not allow this proposal to go through! Thank you, Summer Casady 4/19/23, 8:23 AM LINCOLN COUNTY WYOMING Mail - File No: 103 Cup 23 - Sunroe Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit- Response https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=f1e3f38f9b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1762900375674390508&simpl=msg-f:1762900375674390508 1/1 Robert Davis <robert.davis@lincolncountywy.gov> File No: 103 Cup 23 - Sunroe Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit- Response 1 message Tiffani Decker <tiffani@airstreamofwyoming.com>Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 11:06 AM To: planning@lincolncountywy.gov Dear Lincoln County Planning Commission, I just received notification about the Project in Etna by Sunroe Corporation Expansion of Existing Gravel Pit. I wanted to comment on this project as an employee of Airstream of Wyoming and the Grand Buffalo RV Resort as this project could impact the success of these businesses especially the RV Resort. The asphalt batch plant would negatively affect the environment near the plant with air, odor, and noise pollution. I feel like it would be better to consider areas in the Valley that have similar businesses and would make less impact on residential and tourist businesses, such as the valley dump.  Thank you for your consideration.   Tiffani Decker Marketing Director & HR Specialist Airstream of Utah - Airstream of Wyoming - Grand Buffalo RV Resort Websites: www.airstreamofutah. com - www.airstreamofwyoming.com - www.grandbuffalorvresort.com Locations: 3131 W. 2210 S. West Valley City, UT 84119 - 22 Rorke Rd. Etna, WY 83120 Utah Phone: (801) 890-4363 - Wyoming Phone: (307) 269-2205 - Direct: (801) 361- 0696 Family owned & operated since 2017 *I work on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays but I try to check my email everyday. If you have an urgent request, please text me at 801-361-0696. If not, please expect an answer on the following day I work.* THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2016 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. THE NEXT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2016 AT 6:00 P.M. VIA VIDEO CONFERENCE BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING TWO LOCATIONS NOTED BELOW. TENTATIVE AGENDA LINCOLN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 27, 2016 6:00 P.M. Video Conference between the following locations: Lincoln County Courthouse, Commissioner Boardroom, 925 Sage Avenue 3rd Floor, Kemmerer, WY and Afton Planning & Engineering Office, 61 East 5th Avenue, Afton, WY I CALL TO ORDER II INTRODUCTION OF PZC MEMBERS III PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INTRODUCTION TO MEETING IV APPROVAL OF MINUTES V Development Report VI PROJECT TABLED TO JUNE 29, 2016 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING 105 PZ 15 Continuation of Consideration of Action from 11/18/15 PZC Meeting Table: Conditional Use – Gravel Pit Expansion DePatco, Inc. Conditional Use Application – Gravel Pit Expansion on Pit aka Robinson Gravel Pit Location: Township 35 North, Range 119 West, Section 2 Lot 3, access off Rock Farm Road VII OTHER PLANNING MATTERS ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Additional information regarding the above noted files can be viewed at http://weblink.lcwy.org/WebLink8/Browse.aspx Projects for Planning, OR http:www.lcwy.org Public Services, Public Records, click on Browse, Projects for Planning. All interested citizens are invited to attend the public hearing and to provide input. Those planning on attending should call the day before to see if the meeting and project is still scheduled.